Project Gutenberg’s Essays on the Theory of Numbers, by Richard Dedekind This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net
Title: Essays on the Theory of Numbers Author: Richard Dedekind Translator: Wooster Woodruff Beman Release Date: April 8, 2007 [EBook #21016] Language: English Character set encoding: TeX *** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THEORY OF NUMBERS ***
Produced by Jonathan Ingram, Keith Edkins and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
Transcriber’s Note: The symbol 3 is used as an approximation to the author’s Part-of symbol, not to be confused with the digit 3. Internal page references have been been adjusted to fit the pagination of this edition. A few typographical errors have been corrected - these are noted at the very end of the text.
IN THE SAME SERIES.
ON CONTINUITY AND IRRATIONAL NUMBERS, and ON THE NATURE AND MEANING OF NUMBERS. By R. Dedekind. From the German by W. W. Beman. Pages, 115. Cloth, 75 cents net (3s. 6d. net). GEOMETRIC EXERCISES IN PAPER-FOLDING. By T. Sundara Row. Edited and revised by W. W. Beman and D. E. Smith. With many half-tone engravings from photographs of actual exercises, and a package of papers for folding. Pages, circa 200. Cloth, $1.00. net (4s. 6d. net). (In Preparation.) ON THE STUDY AND DIFFICULTIES OF MATHEMATICS. By Augustus De Morgan. Reprint edition with portrait and bibliographies. Pp., 288. Cloth, $1.25 net (4s. 6d. net). LECTURES ON ELEMENTARY MATHEMATICS. By Joseph Louis Lagrange. From the French by Thomas J. McCormack. With portrait and biography. Pages, 172. Cloth, $1.00 net (4s. 6d. net). ELEMENTARY ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE DIFFERENTIAL AND INTEGRAL CALCULUS. By Augustus De Morgan. Reprint edition. With a bibliography of text-books of the Calculus. Pp., 144. Price, $1.00 net (4s. 6d. net). MATHEMATICAL ESSAYS AND RECREATIONS. By Prof. Hermann Schubert, of Hamburg, Germany. From the German by T. J. McCormack, Essays on Number, The Magic Square, The Fourth Dimension, The Squaring of the Circle. Pages, 149. Price, Cloth, 75c. net (3s. net). A BRIEF HISTORY OF ELEMENTARY MATHEMATICS. By Dr. Karl Fink, of T¨ ubingen. From the German by W. W. Beman and D. E. Smith, Pp. 333. Cloth, $1.50 net (5s. 6d. net).
THE OPEN COURT PUBLISHING COMPANY 324 DEARBORN ST., CHICAGO.
LONDON: Kegan Paul, Trench, Tr¨ ubner & Co.
ESSAYS ON THE
THEORY OF NUMBERS I. CONTINUITY AND IRRATIONAL NUMBERS II. THE NATURE AND MEANING OF NUMBERS
AUTHORISED TRANSLATION BY
WOOSTER WOODRUFF BEMAN PROFESSOR OF MATHEMATICS IN THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
CHICAGO THE OPEN COURT PUBLISHING COMPANY LONDON AGENTS ¨bner & Co., Ltd. Kegan Paul, Trench, Tru
TRANSLATION COPYRIGHTED BY The Open Court Publishing Co. 1901.
CONTINUITY AND IRRATIONAL NUMBERS My attention was first directed toward the considerations which form the subject of this pamphlet in the autumn of 1858. As professor in the Polytechnic School in Z¨ urich I found myself for the first time obliged to lecture upon the elements of the differential calculus and felt more keenly than ever before the lack of a really scientific foundation for arithmetic. In discussing the notion of the approach of a variable magnitude to a fixed limiting value, and especially in proving the theorem that every magnitude which grows continually, but not beyond all limits, must certainly approach a limiting value, I had recourse to geometric evidences. Even now such resort to geometric intuition in a first presentation of the differential calculus, I regard as exceedingly useful, from the didactic standpoint, and indeed indispensable, if one does not wish to lose too much time. But that this form of introduction into the differential calculus can make no claim to being scientific, no one will deny. For myself this feeling of dissatisfaction was so overpowering that I made the fixed resolve to keep meditating on the question till I should find a purely arithmetic and perfectly rigorous foundation for the principles of infinitesimal analysis. The statement is so frequently made that the differential calculus deals with continuous magnitude, and yet an explanation of this continuity is nowhere given; even the most rigorous expositions of the differential calculus do not base their proofs upon continuity but, with more or less consciousness of the fact, they either appeal to geometric notions or those suggested by geometry, or depend upon theorems which are never established in a purely arithmetic manner. Among these, for example, belongs the above-mentioned theorem, and a more careful investigation convinced me that this theorem, or any one equivalent to it, can be regarded in some way as a sufficient basis for infinitesimal analysis. It then only remained to discover its true origin in the elements of arithmetic and thus at the same time to secure a real definition of the essence of continuity. I succeeded Nov. 24, 1858, and a few days afterward I communicated the results of my meditations to my dear friend Dur`ege with whom I had a long and lively discussion. Later I explained these views of a scientific basis of arithmetic to a few of my pupils, and here in Braunschweig read a paper upon the subject before the scientific club of professors, but I could not make up my mind to its publication, because, in the first place, the presentation did not seem altogether simple, and further, the theory itself had little promise. Nevertheless I had already half determined to select this theme as subject for this occasion, when a few days ago, March 14, by the kindness of the author, the paper Die Elemente der Funktionenlehre by E. Heine (Crelle’s Journal, Vol. 74) came into my hands and confirmed me in my decision. In the main I fully agree with the substance of this memoir, and indeed I could hardly do otherwise, but I will frankly acknowledge that my own presentation seems to me to be simpler in form and to bring out the vital point more clearly. While writing this preface (March 20, 1872), I am just in receipt of the interesting paper Ueber die Ausdehnung eines Satzes aus der Theorie der trigonometrischen Reihen, by G. Cantor (Math. Annalen, Vol. 5), for which I owe the ingenious author my hearty thanks. As I find on a hasty perusal, the 1
axiom given in Section II. of that paper, aside from the form of presentation, agrees with what I designate in Section III. as the essence of continuity. But what advantage will be gained by even a purely abstract definition of real numbers of a higher type, I am as yet unable to see, conceiving as I do of the domain of real numbers as complete in itself.
I. PROPERTIES OF RATIONAL NUMBERS. The development of the arithmetic of rational numbers is here presupposed, but still I think it worth while to call attention to certain important matters without discussion, so as to show at the outset the standpoint assumed in what follows. I regard the whole of arithmetic as a necessary, or at least natural, consequence of the simplest arithmetic act, that of counting, and counting itself as nothing else than the successive creation of the infinite series of positive integers in which each individual is defined by the one immediately preceding; the simplest act is the passing from an already-formed individual to the consecutive new one to be formed. The chain of these numbers forms in itself an exceedingly useful instrument for the human mind; it presents an inexhaustible wealth of remarkable laws obtained by the introduction of the four fundamental operations of arithmetic. Addition is the combination of any arbitrary repetitions of the above-mentioned simplest act into a single act; from it in a similar way arises multiplication. While the performance of these two operations is always possible, that of the inverse operations, subtraction and division, proves to be limited. Whatever the immediate occasion may have been, whatever comparisons or analogies with experience, or intuition, may have led thereto; it is certainly true that just this limitation in performing the indirect operations has in each case been the real motive for a new creative act; thus negative and fractional numbers have been created by the human mind; and in the system of all rational numbers there has been gained an instrument of infinitely greater perfection. This system, which I shall denote by R, possesses first of all a completeness and self-containedness which I have designated in another place1 as characteristic of a body of numbers [Zahlk¨orper] and which consists in this that the four fundamental operations are always performable with any two individuals in R, i. e., the result is always an individual of R, the single case of division by the number zero being excepted. For our immediate purpose, however, another property of the system R is still more important; it may be expressed by saying that the system R forms a well-arranged domain of one dimension extending to infinity on two opposite sides. What is meant by this is sufficiently indicated by my use of expressions borrowed from geometric ideas; but just for this reason it will be necessary to bring out clearly the corresponding purely arithmetic properties in order to avoid even the appearance as if arithmetic were in need of ideas foreign to it. 1 Vorlesungen
u ¨ber Zahlentheorie, by P. G. Lejeune Dirichlet. 2d ed. §159.
To express that the symbols a and b represent one and the same rational number we put a = b as well as b = a. The fact that two rational numbers a, b are different appears in this that the difference a − b has either a positive or negative value. In the former case a is said to be greater than b, b less than a; this is also indicated by the symbols a > b, b < a.2 As in the latter case b − a has a positive value it follows that b > a, a < b. In regard to these two ways in which two numbers may differ the following laws will hold: i. If a > b, and b > c, then a > c. Whenever a, c are two different (or unequal) numbers, and b is greater than the one and less than the other, we shall, without hesitation because of the suggestion of geometric ideas, express this briefly by saying: b lies between the two numbers a, c. ii. If a, c are two different numbers, there are infinitely many different numbers lying between a, c. iii. If a is any definite number, then all numbers of the system R fall into two classes, A1 and A2 , each of which contains infinitely many individuals; the first class A1 comprises all numbers a1 that are < a, the second class A2 comprises all numbers a2 that are > a; the number a itself may be assigned at pleasure to the first or second class, being respectively the greatest number of the first class or the least of the second. In every case the separation of the system R into the two classes A1 , A2 is such that every number of the first class A1 is less than every number of the second class A2 .
II. COMPARISON OF THE RATIONAL NUMBERS WITH THE POINTS OF A STRAIGHT LINE. The above-mentioned properties of rational numbers recall the corresponding relations of position of the points of a straight line L. If the two opposite directions existing upon it are distinguished by “right” and “left,” and p, q are two different points, then either p lies to the right of q, and at the same time q to the left of p, or conversely q lies to the right of p and at the same time p to the left of q. A third case is impossible, if p, q are actually different points. In regard to this difference in position the following laws hold: i. If p lies to the right of q, and q to the right of r, then p lies to the right of r; and we say that q lies between the points p and r. ii. If p, r are two different points, then there always exist infinitely many points that lie between p and r. iii. If p is a definite point in L, then all points in L fall into two classes, P1 , P2 , each of which contains infinitely many individuals; the first class P1 contains all the points p1 , that lie to the left of p, and the second class P2 contains all the points p2 that lie to the right of p; the point p itself may be assigned at pleasure to the first or second class. In every case the separation of the straight 2 Hence in what follows the so-called “algebraic” greater and less are understood unless the word “absolute” is added.
line L into the two classes or portions P1 , P2 , is of such a character that every point of the first class P1 lies to the left of every point of the second class P2 . This analogy between rational numbers and the points of a straight line, as is well known, becomes a real correspondence when we select upon the straight line a definite origin or zero-point o and a definite unit of length for the measurement of segments. With the aid of the latter to every rational number a a corresponding length can be constructed and if we lay this off upon the straight line to the right or left of o according as a is positive or negative, we obtain a definite end-point p, which may be regarded as the point corresponding to the number a; to the rational number zero corresponds the point o. In this way to every rational number a, i. e., to every individual in R, corresponds one and only one point p, i. e., an individual in L. To the two numbers a, b respectively correspond the two points, p, q, and if a > b, then p lies to the right of q. To the laws i, ii, iii of the previous Section correspond completely the laws i, ii, iii of the present.
III. CONTINUITY OF THE STRAIGHT LINE. Of the greatest importance, however, is the fact that in the straight line L there are infinitely many points which correspond to no rational number. If the point p corresponds to the rational number a, then, as is well known, the length o p is commensurable with the invariable unit of measure used in the construction, i. e., there exists a third length, a so-called common measure, of which these two lengths are integral multiples. But the ancient Greeks already knew and had demonstrated that there are lengths incommensurable with a given unit of length, e. g., the diagonal of the square whose side is the unit of length. If we lay off such a length from the point o upon the line we obtain an end-point which corresponds to no rational number. Since further it can be easily shown that there are infinitely many lengths which are incommensurable with the unit of length, we may affirm: The straight line L is infinitely richer in point-individuals than the domain R of rational numbers in number-individuals. If now, as is our desire, we try to follow up arithmetically all phenomena in the straight line, the domain of rational numbers is insufficient and it becomes absolutely necessary that the instrument R constructed by the creation of the rational numbers be essentially improved by the creation of new numbers such that the domain of numbers shall gain the same completeness, or as we may say at once, the same continuity, as the straight line. The previous considerations are so familiar and well known to all that many will regard their repetition quite superfluous. Still I regarded this recapitulation as necessary to prepare properly for the main question. For, the way in which the irrational numbers are usually introduced is based directly upon the conception of extensive magnitudes—which itself is nowhere carefully defined—and explains number as the result of measuring such a magnitude by another of the same
kind.3 Instead of this I demand that arithmetic shall be developed out of itself. That such comparisons with non-arithmetic notions have furnished the immediate occasion for the extension of the number-concept may, in a general way, be granted (though this was certainly not the case in the introduction of complex numbers); but this surely is no sufficient ground for introducing these foreign notions into arithmetic, the science of numbers. Just as negative and fractional rational numbers are formed by a new creation, and as the laws of operating with these numbers must and can be reduced to the laws of operating with positive integers, so we must endeavor completely to define irrational numbers by means of the rational numbers alone. The question only remains how to do this. The above comparison of the domain R of rational numbers with a straight line has led to the recognition of the existence of gaps, of a certain incompleteness or discontinuity of the former, while we ascribe to the straight line completeness, absence of gaps, or continuity. In what then does this continuity consist? Everything must depend on the answer to this question, and only through it shall we obtain a scientific basis for the investigation of all continuous domains. By vague remarks upon the unbroken connection in the smallest parts obviously nothing is gained; the problem is to indicate a precise characteristic of continuity that can serve as the basis for valid deductions. For a long time I pondered over this in vain, but finally I found what I was seeking. This discovery will, perhaps, be differently estimated by different people; the majority may find its substance very commonplace. It consists of the following. In the preceding section attention was called to the fact that every point p of the straight line produces a separation of the same into two portions such that every point of one portion lies to the left of every point of the other. I find the essence of continuity in the converse, i. e., in the following principle: “If all points of the straight line fall into two classes such that every point of the first class lies to the left of every point of the second class, then there exists one and only one point which produces this division of all points into two classes, this severing of the straight line into two portions.” As already said I think I shall not err in assuming that every one will at once grant the truth of this statement; the majority of my readers will be very much disappointed in learning that by this commonplace remark the secret of continuity is to be revealed. To this I may say that I am glad if every one finds the above principle so obvious and so in harmony with his own ideas of a line; for I am utterly unable to adduce any proof of its correctness, nor has any one the power. The assumption of this property of the line is nothing else than an axiom by which we attribute to the line its continuity, by which we find continuity in the line. If space has at all a real existence it is not necessary for it to be continuous; many of its properties would remain the same even were it discontinuous. And if we knew for certain that space was discontinuous there 3 The apparent advantage of the generality of this definition of number disappears as soon as we consider complex numbers. According to my view, on the other hand, the notion of the ratio between two numbers of the same kind can be clearly developed only after the introduction of irrational numbers.
would be nothing to prevent us, in case we so desired, from filling up its gaps, in thought, and thus making it continuous; this filling up would consist in a creation of new point-individuals and would have to be effected in accordance with the above principle.
IV. CREATION OF IRRATIONAL NUMBERS. From the last remarks it is sufficiently obvious how the discontinuous domain R of rational numbers may be rendered complete so as to form a continuous domain. In Section I it was pointed out that every rational number a effects a separation of the system R into two classes such that every number a1 of the first class A1 is less than every number a2 of the second class A2 ; the number a is either the greatest number of the class A1 or the least number of the class A2 . If now any separation of the system R into two classes A1 , A2 is given which possesses only this characteristic property that every number a1 in A1 is less than every number a2 in A2 , then for brevity we shall call such a separation a cut [Schnitt] and designate it by (A1 , A2 ). We can then say that every rational number a produces one cut or, strictly speaking, two cuts, which, however, we shall not look upon as essentially different; this cut possesses, besides, the property that either among the numbers of the first class there exists a greatest or among the numbers of the second class a least number. And conversely, if a cut possesses this property, then it is produced by this greatest or least rational number. But it is easy to show that there exist infinitely many cuts not produced by rational numbers. The following example suggests itself most readily. Let D be a positive integer but not the square of an integer, then there exists a positive integer λ such that λ2 < D < (λ + 1)2 . If we assign to the second class A2 , every positive rational number a2 whose square is > D, to the first class A1 all other rational numbers a1 , this separation forms a cut (A1 , A2 ), i. e., every number a1 is less than every number a2 . For if a1 = 0, or is negative, then on that ground a1 is less than any number a2 , because, by definition, this last is positive; if a1 is positive, then is its square 5 D, and hence a1 is less than any positive number a2 whose square is > D. But this cut is produced by no rational number. To demonstrate this it must be shown first of all that there exists no rational number whose square = D. Although this is known from the first elements of the theory of numbers, still the following indirect proof may find place here. If there exist a rational number whose square = D, then there exist two positive integers t, u, that satisfy the equation t2 − Du2 = 0,
and we may assume that u is the least positive integer possessing the property that its square, by multiplication by D, may be converted into the square of an integer t. Since evidently λu < t < (λ + 1)u, the number u0 = t − λu is a positive integer certainly less than u. If further we put t0 = Du − λt, t0 is likewise a positive integer, and we have t02 − Du02 = (λ2 − D)(t2 − Du2 ) = 0, which is contrary to the assumption respecting u. Hence the square of every rational number x is either < D or > D. From this it easily follows that there is neither in the class A1 a greatest, nor in the class A2 a least number. For if we put y=
x(x2 + 3D) , 3x2 + D
we have y−x=
2x(D − x2 ) 3x2 + D
y2 − D =
(x2 − D)3 . (3x2 + D)2
If in this we assume x to be a positive number from the class A1 , then x2 < D, and hence y > x and y 2 < D. Therefore y likewise belongs to the class A1 . But if we assume x to be a number from the class A2 , then x2 > D, and hence y < x, y > 0, and y 2 > D. Therefore y likewise belongs to the class A2 . This cut is therefore produced by no rational number. In this property that not all cuts are produced by rational numbers consists the incompleteness or discontinuity of the domain R of all rational numbers. Whenever, then, we have to do with a cut (A1 , A2 ) produced by no rational number, we create a new, an irrational number α, which we regard as completely defined by this cut (A1 , A2 ); we shall say that the number α corresponds to this cut, or that it produces this cut. From now on, therefore, to every definite cut there corresponds a definite rational or irrational number, and we regard two numbers as different or unequal always and only when they correspond to essentially different cuts. In order to obtain a basis for the orderly arrangement of all real, i. e., of all rational and irrational numbers we must investigate the relation between any two cuts (A1 , A2 ) and (B1 , B2 ) produced by any two numbers α and β. Obviously a cut (A1 , A2 ) is given completely when one of the two classes, e. g., the first A1 is known, because the second A2 consists of all rational numbers not contained in A1 , and the characteristic property of such a first class lies in 7
this that if the number a1 is contained in it, it also contains all numbers less than a1 . If now we compare two such first classes A1 , B1 with each other, it may happen 1. That they are perfectly identical, i. e., that every number contained in A1 is also contained in B1 , and that every number contained in B1 is also contained in A1 . In this case A2 is necessarily identical with B2 , and the two cuts are perfectly identical, which we denote in symbols by α = β or β = α. But if the two classes A1 , B1 are not identical, then there exists in the one, e. g., in A1 , a number a01 = b02 not contained in the other B1 and consequently found in B2 ; hence all numbers b1 contained in B1 are certainly less than this number a01 = b02 and therefore all numbers b1 are contained in A1 . 2. If now this number a01 is the only one in A1 that is not contained in B1 , then is every other number a1 contained in A1 also contained in B1 and is consequently < a01 , i. e., a01 is the greatest among all the numbers a1 , hence the cut (A1 , A2 ) is produced by the rational number a = a01 = b02 . Concerning the other cut (B1 , B2 ) we know already that all numbers b1 in B1 are also contained in A1 and are less than the number a01 = b02 which is contained in B2 ; every other number b2 contained in B2 must, however, be greater than b02 , for otherwise it would be less than a01 , therefore contained in A1 and hence in B1 ; hence b02 is the least among all numbers contained in B2 , and consequently the cut (B1 , B2 ) is produced by the same rational number β = b02 = a01 = α. The two cuts are then only unessentially different. 3. If, however, there exist in A1 at least two different numbers a01 = b02 and a001 = b002 , which are not contained in B1 , then there exist infinitely many of them, because all the infinitely many numbers lying between a01 and a001 are obviously contained in A1 (Section I, ii) but not in B1 . In this case we say that the numbers α and β corresponding to these two essentially different cuts (A1 , A2 ) and (B1 , B2 ) are different, and further that α is greater than β, that β is less than α, which we express in symbols by α > β as well as β < α. It is to be noticed that this definition coincides completely with the one given earlier, when α, β are rational. The remaining possible cases are these: 4. If there exists in B1 one and only one number b01 = a02 , that is not contained in A1 then the two cuts (A1 , A2 ) and (B1 , B2 ) are only unessentially different and they are produced by one and the same rational number α = a02 = b01 = β. 5. But if there are in B1 at least two numbers which are not contained in A1 , then β > α, α < β. As this exhausts the possible cases, it follows that of two different numbers one is necessarily the greater, the other the less, which gives two possibilities. A third case is impossible. This was indeed involved in the use of the comparative (greater, less) to designate the relation between α, β; but this use has only now been justified. In just such investigations one needs to exercise the greatest care so that even with the best intention to be honest he shall not, through a hasty choice of expressions borrowed from other notions already developed, allow himself to be led into the use of inadmissible transfers from one domain 8
to the other. If now we consider again somewhat carefully the case α > β it is obvious that the less number β, if rational, certainly belongs to the class A1 ; for since there is in A1 a number a01 = b02 which belongs to the class B2 , it follows that the number β, whether the greatest number in B1 or the least in B2 is certainly 5 a01 and hence contained in A1 . Likewise it is obvious from α > β that the greater number α, if rational, certainly belongs to the class B2 , because α = a01 . Combining these two considerations we get the following result: If a cut is produced by the number α then any rational number belongs to the class A1 or to the class A2 according as it is less or greater than α; if the number α is itself rational it may belong to either class. From this we obtain finally the following: If α > β, i. e., if there are infinitely many numbers in A1 not contained in B1 then there are infinitely many such numbers that at the same time are different from α and from β; every such rational number c is < α, because it is contained in A1 and at the same time it is > β because contained in B2 .
V. CONTINUITY OF THE DOMAIN OF REAL NUMBERS. In consequence of the distinctions just established the system R of all real numbers forms a well-arranged domain of one dimension; this is to mean merely that the following laws prevail: i. If α > β, and β > γ, then is also α > γ. We shall say that the number β lies between α and γ. ii. If α, γ are any two different numbers, then there exist infinitely many different numbers β lying between α, γ. iii. If α is any definite number then all numbers of the system R fall into two classes A1 and A2 each of which contains infinitely many individuals; the first class A1 comprises all the numbers α1 that are less than α, the second A2 comprises all the numbers α2 that are greater than α; the number α itself may be assigned at pleasure to the first class or to the second, and it is respectively the greatest of the first or the least of the second class. In each case the separation of the system R into the two classes A1 , A2 is such that every number of first class A1 is smaller than every number of the second class A2 and we say that this separation is produced by the number α. For brevity and in order not to weary the reader I suppress the proofs of these theorems which follow immediately from the definitions of the previous section. Beside these properties, however, the domain R possesses also continuity; i. e., the following theorem is true: iv. If the system R of all real numbers breaks up into two classes A1 , A2 such that every number α1 of the class A1 is less than every number α2 of the class A2 then there exists one and only one number α by which this separation is produced. 9
Proof. By the separation or the cut of R into A1 and A2 we obtain at the same time a cut (A1 , A2 ) of the system R of all rational numbers which is defined by this that A1 contains all rational numbers of the class A1 and A2 all other rational numbers, i. e., all rational numbers of the class A2 . Let α be the perfectly definite number which produces this cut (A1 , A2 ). If β is any number different from α, there are always infinitely many rational numbers c lying between α and β. If β < α, then c < α; hence c belongs to the class A1 and consequently also to the class A1 , and since at the same time β < c then β also belongs to the same class A1 , because every number in A2 is greater than every number c in A1 . But if β > α, then is c > α; hence c belongs to the class A2 and consequently also to the class A2 , and since at the same time β > c, then β also belongs to the same class A2 , because every number in A1 is less than every number c in A2 . Hence every number β different from α belongs to the class A1 or to the class A2 according as β < α or β > α; consequently α itself is either the greatest number in A1 or the least number in A2 , i. e., α is one and obviously the only number by which the separation of R into the classes A1 , A2 is produced. Which was to be proved.
VI. OPERATIONS WITH REAL NUMBERS. To reduce any operation with two real numbers α, β to operations with rational numbers, it is only necessary from the cuts (A1 , A2 ), (B1 , B2 ) produced by the numbers α and β in the system R to define the cut (C1 , C2 ) which is to correspond to the result of the operation, γ. I confine myself here to the discussion of the simplest case, that of addition. If c is any rational number, we put it into the class C1 , provided there are two numbers one a1 in A1 and one b1 in B1 such that their sum a1 + b1 = c; all other rational numbers shall be put into the class C2 . This separation of all rational numbers into the two classes C1 , C2 evidently forms a cut, since every number c1 in C1 is less than every number c2 in C2 . If both α and β are rational, then every number c1 contained in C1 is 5 α + β, because a1 5 α, b1 5 β, and therefore a1 + b1 5 α + β; further, if there were contained in C2 a number c2 < α + β, hence α + β = c2 + p, where p is a positive rational number, then we should have 1 1 c2 = (α − p) + (β − p), 2 2 which contradicts the definition of the number c2 , because α − 12 p is a number in A1 , and β − 21 p a number in B1 ; consequently every number c2 contained in C2 is = α + β. Therefore in this case the cut (C1 , C2 ) is produced by the sum α + β. Thus we shall not violate the definition which holds in the arithmetic of rational numbers if in all cases we understand by the sum α + β of any two real numbers α, β that number γ by which the cut (C1 , C2 ) is produced. Further, if only one of the two numbers α, β is rational, e. g., α, it is easy to see that it
makes no difference with the sum γ = α + β whether the number α is put into the class A1 or into the class A2 . Just as addition is defined, so can the other operations of the so-called elementary arithmetic be defined, viz., the formation of differences, products, quotients, powers, roots, √ √ and in this way we arrive at real proofs of √ logarithms, theorems (as, e. g., 2 · 3 = 6), which to the best of my knowledge have never been established before. The excessive length that is to be feared in the definitions of the more complicated operations is partly inherent in the nature of the subject but can for the most part be avoided. Very useful in this connection is the notion of an interval, i. e., a system A of rational numbers possessing the following characteristic property: if a and a0 are numbers of the system A, then are all rational numbers lying between a and a0 contained in A. The system R of all rational numbers, and also the two classes of any cut are intervals. If there exist a rational number a1 which is less and a rational number a2 which is greater than every number of the interval A, then A is called a finite interval; there then exist infinitely many numbers in the same condition as a1 and infinitely many in the same condition as a2 ; the whole domain R breaks up into three parts A1 , A, A2 and there enter two perfectly definite rational or irrational numbers α1 , α2 which may be called respectively the lower and upper (or the less and greater) limits of the interval; the lower limit α1 is determined by the cut for which the system A1 forms the first class and the upper α2 by the cut for which the system A2 forms the second class. Of every rational or irrational number α lying between α1 and α2 it may be said that it lies within the interval A. If all numbers of an interval A are also numbers of an interval B, then A is called a portion of B. Still lengthier considerations seem to loom up when we attempt to adapt the numerous theorems of the arithmetic of rational numbers (as, e. g., the theorem (a + b)c = ac + bc) to any real numbers. This, however, is not the case. It is easy to see that it all reduces to showing that the arithmetic operations possess a certain continuity. What I mean by this statement may be expressed in the form of a general theorem: “If the number λ is the result of an operation performed on the numbers α, β, γ, . . . and λ lies within the interval L, then intervals A, B, C, . . . can be taken within which lie the numbers α, β, γ, . . . such that the result of the same operation in which the numbers α, β, γ, . . . are replaced by arbitrary numbers of the intervals A, B, C, . . . is always a number lying within the interval L.” The forbidding clumsiness, however, which marks the statement of such a theorem convinces us that something must be brought in as an aid to expression; this is, in fact, attained in the most satisfactory way by introducing the ideas of variable magnitudes, functions, limiting values, and it would be best to base the definitions of even the simplest arithmetic operations upon these ideas, a matter which, however, cannot be carried further here.
VII. INFINITESIMAL ANALYSIS. Here at the close we ought to explain the connection between the preceding investigations and certain fundamental theorems of infinitesimal analysis. We say that a variable magnitude x which passes through successive definite numerical values approaches a fixed limiting value α when in the course of the process x lies finally between two numbers between which α itself lies, or, what amounts to the same, when the difference x−α taken absolutely becomes finally less than any given value different from zero. One of the most important theorems may be stated in the following manner: “If a magnitude x grows continually but not beyond all limits it approaches a limiting value.” I prove it in the following way. By hypothesis there exists one and hence there exist infinitely many numbers α2 such that x remains continually < α2 ; I designate by A2 the system of all these numbers α2 , by A1 the system of all other numbers α1 ; each of the latter possesses the property that in the course of the process x becomes finally = α1 , hence every number α1 is less than every number α2 and consequently there exists a number α which is either the greatest in A1 or the least in A2 (V, iv). The former cannot be the case since x never ceases to grow, hence α is the least number in A2 . Whatever number α1 be taken we shall have finally α1 < x < α, i. e., x approaches the limiting value α. This theorem is equivalent to the principle of continuity, i. e., it loses its validity as soon as we assume a single real number not to be contained in the domain R; or otherwise expressed: if this theorem is correct, then is also theorem iv. in V. correct. Another theorem of infinitesimal analysis, likewise equivalent to this, which is still oftener employed, may be stated as follows: “If in the variation of a magnitude x we can for every given positive magnitude δ assign a corresponding position from and after which x changes by less than δ then x approaches a limiting value.” This converse of the easily demonstrated theorem that every variable magnitude which approaches a limiting value finally changes by less than any given positive magnitude can be derived as well from the preceding theorem as directly from the principle of continuity. I take the latter course. Let δ be any positive magnitude (i. e., δ > 0), then by hypothesis a time will come after which x will change by less than δ, i. e., if at this time x has the value a, then afterwards we shall continually have x > a − δ and x < a + δ. I now for a moment lay aside the original hypothesis and make use only of the theorem just demonstrated that all later values of the variable x lie between two assignable finite values. Upon this I base a double separation of all real numbers. To the system A2 I assign a number α2 (e.g., a + δ) when in the course of the process x becomes finally 5 α2 ; to the system A1 I assign every number not contained in A2 ; if α1 is such a number, then, however far the process may have advanced, it will still happen infinitely many times that x > α2 . Since every number α1 is less than every 12
number α2 there exists a perfectly definite number α which produces this cut (A1 , A2 ) of the system R and which I will call the upper limit of the variable x which always remains finite. Likewise as a result of the behavior of the variable x a second cut (B1 , B2 ) of the system R is produced; a number β2 (e. g., a − δ) is assigned to B2 when in the course of the process x becomes finally = β; every other number β2 , to be assigned to B2 , has the property that x is never finally = β2 ; therefore infinitely many times x becomes < β2 ; the number β by which this cut is produced I call the lower limiting value of the variable x. The two numbers α, β are obviously characterised by the following property: if is an arbitrarily small positive magnitude then we have always finally x < α + and x > β − , but never finally x < α − and never finally x > β + . Now two cases are possible. If α and β are different from each other, then necessarily α > β, since continually α2 = β2 ; the variable x oscillates, and, however far the process advances, always undergoes changes whose amount surpasses the value (α − β) − 2 where is an arbitrarily small positive magnitude. The original hypothesis to which I now return contradicts this consequence; there remains only the second case α = β since it has already been shown that, however small be the positive magnitude , we always have finally x < α + and x > β − , x approaches the limiting value α, which was to be proved. These examples may suffice to bring out the connection between the principle of continuity and infinitesimal analysis.
THE NATURE AND MEANING OF NUMBERS PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. In science nothing capable of proof ought to be accepted without proof. Though this demand seems so reasonable yet I cannot regard it as having been met even in the most recent methods of laying the foundations of the simplest science; viz., that part of logic which deals with the theory of numbers.4 In speaking of arithmetic (algebra, analysis) as a part of logic I mean to imply that I consider the number-concept entirely independent of the notions or intuitions of space and time, that I consider it an immediate result from the laws of thought. My answer to the problems propounded in the title of this paper is, then, briefly this: numbers are free creations of the human mind; they serve as a means of apprehending more easily and more sharply the difference of things. It is only through the purely logical process of building up the science of numbers and by thus acquiring the continuous number-domain that we are prepared accurately to investigate our notions of space and time by bringing them into relation with this number-domain created in our mind.5 If we scrutinise closely what is done in counting an aggregate or number of things, we are led to consider the ability of the mind to relate things to things, to let a thing correspond to a thing, or to represent a thing by a thing, an ability without which no thinking is possible. Upon this unique and therefore absolutely indispensable foundation, as I have already affirmed in an announcement of this paper,6 must, in my judgment, the whole science of numbers be established. The design of such a presentation I had formed before the publication of my paper on Continuity, but only after its appearance and with many interruptions occasioned by increased official duties and other necessary labors, was I able in the years 1872 to 1878 to commit to paper a first rough draft which several mathematicians examined and partially discussed with me. It bears the same title and contains, though not arranged in the best order, all the essential fundamental ideas of my present paper, in which they are more carefully elaborated. As such main points I mention here the sharp distinction between finite and infinite (64), the notion of the number [Anzahl ] of things (161), the proof that the form of argument known as complete induction (or the inference from n to n + 1) is really conclusive (59), (60), (80), and that therefore the definition by induction (or recursion) is determinate and consistent (126). 4 Of the works which have come under my observation I mention the valuable Lehrbuch der Arithmetik und Algebra of E. Schr¨ oder (Leipzig, 1873), which contains a bibliography of the subject, and in addition the memoirs of Kronecker and von Helmholtz upon the NumberConcept and upon Counting and Measuring (in the collection of philosophical essays published in honor of E. Zeller, Leipzig, 1887). The appearance of these memoirs has induced me to publish my own views, in many respects similar but in foundation essentially different, which I formulated many years ago in absolute independence of the works of others. 5 See Section III. of my memoir, Continuity and Irrational Numbers (Braunschweig, 1872), translated at pages 4 et seq. of the present volume. 6 Dirichlet’s Vorlesungen u ¨ber Zahlentheorie, third edition, 1879, § 163, note on page 470.
This memoir can be understood by any one possessing what is usually called good common sense; no technical philosophic, or mathematical, knowledge is in the least degree required. But I feel conscious that many a reader will scarcely recognise in the shadowy forms which I bring before him his numbers which all his life long have accompanied him as faithful and familiar friends; he will be frightened by the long series of simple inferences corresponding to our step-bystep understanding, by the matter-of-fact dissection of the chains of reasoning on which the laws of numbers depend, and will become impatient at being compelled to follow out proofs for truths which to his supposed inner consciousness seem at once evident and certain. On the contrary in just this possibility of reducing such truths to others more simple, no matter how long and apparently artificial the series of inferences, I recognise a convincing proof that their possession or belief in them is never given by inner consciousness but is always gained only by a more or less complete repetition of the individual inferences. I like to compare this action of thought, so difficult to trace on account of the rapidity of its performance, with the action which an accomplished reader performs in reading; this reading always remains a more or less complete repetition of the individual steps which the beginner has to take in his wearisome spelling-out; a very small part of the same, and therefore a very small effort or exertion of the mind, is sufficient for the practised reader to recognise the correct, true word, only with very great probability, to be sure; for, as is well known, it occasionally happens that even the most practised proof-reader allows a typographical error to escape him, i. e., reads falsely, a thing which would be impossible if the chain of thoughts associated with spelling were fully repeated. So from the time of birth, continually and in increasing measure we are led to relate things to things and thus to use that faculty of the mind on which the creation of numbers depends; by this practice continually occurring, though without definite purpose, in our earliest years and by the attending formation of judgments and chains of reasoning we acquire a store of real arithmetic truths to which our first teachers later refer as to something simple, self-evident, given in the inner consciousness; and so it happens that many very complicated notions (as for example that of the number [Anzahl ] of things) are erroneously regarded as simple. In this sense which I wish to express by the word formed after a well-known saying eÈ å njrwpoc rijmhtÐzai, I hope that the following pages, as an attempt to establish the science of numbers upon a uniform foundation will find a generous welcome and that other mathematicians will be led to reduce the long series of inferences to more moderate and attractive proportions. In accordance with the purpose of this memoir I restrict myself to the consideration of the series of so-called natural numbers. In what way the gradual extension of the number-concept, the creation of zero, negative, fractional, irrational and complex numbers are to be accomplished by reduction to the earlier notions and that without any introduction of foreign conceptions (such as that of measurable magnitudes, which according to my view can attain perfect clearness only through the science of numbers), this I have shown at least for irrational numbers in my former memoir on Continuity (1872); in a way wholly similar, as
I have already shown in Section III. of that memoir,7 may the other extensions be treated, and I propose sometime to present this whole subject in systematic form. From just this point of view it appears as something self-evident and not new that every theorem of algebra and higher analysis, no matter how remote, can be expressed as a theorem about natural numbers,—a declaration I have heard repeatedly from the lips of Dirichlet. But I see nothing meritorious–and this was just as far from Dirichlet’s thought—in actually performing this wearisome circumlocution and insisting on the use and recognition of no other than rational numbers. On the contrary, the greatest and most fruitful advances in mathematics and other sciences have invariably been made by the creation and introduction of new concepts, rendered necessary by the frequent recurrence of complex phenomena which could be controlled by the old notions only with difficulty. On this subject I gave a lecture before the philosophic faculty in the summer of 1854 on the occasion of my admission as privat-docent in G¨ottingen. The scope of this lecture met with the approval of Gauss; but this is not the place to go into further detail. Instead of this I will use the opportunity to make some remarks relating to my earlier work, mentioned above, on Continuity and Irrational Numbers. The theory of irrational numbers there presented, wrought out in the fall of 1853, is based on the phenomenon (Section IV.)8 occurring in the domain of rational numbers which I designate by the term cut [Schnitt] and which I was the first to investigate carefully; it culminates in the proof of the continuity of the new domain of real numbers (Section V., iv.).9 It appears to me to be somewhat simpler, I might say easier, than the two theories, different from it and from each other, which have been proposed by Weierstrass and G. Cantor, and which likewise are perfectly rigorous. It has since been adopted without essential modification by U. Dini in his Fondamenti per la teorica delle funzioni di variabili reali (Pisa, 1878); but the fact that in the course of this exposition my name happens to be mentioned, not in the description of the purely arithmetic phenomenon of the cut but when the author discusses the existence of a measurable quantity corresponding to the cut, might easily lead to the supposition that my theory rests upon the consideration of such quantities. Nothing could be further from the truth; rather have I in Section III.10 of my paper advanced several reasons why I wholly reject the introduction of measurable quantities; indeed, at the end of the paper I have pointed out with respect to their existence that for a great part of the science of space the continuity of its configurations is not even a necessary condition, quite aside from the fact that in works on geometry arithmetic is only casually mentioned by name but is never clearly defined and therefore cannot be employed in demonstrations. To explain this matter more clearly I note the following example: If we select three non-collinear points A, B, C at pleasure, with the single limitation that the ratios of the distances AB, 7 Pages
4 et seq. of the present volume. 6 et seq. of the present volume. 9 Page 9 of the present volume. 10 Pages 4 et seq. of the present volume. 8 Pages
AC, BC are algebraic numbers,11 and regard as existing in space only those points M , for which the ratios of AM , BM , CM to AB are likewise algebraic numbers, then is the space made up of the points M , as is easy to see, everywhere discontinuous; but in spite of this discontinuity, and despite the existence of gaps in this space, all constructions that occur in Euclid’s Elements, can, so far as I can see, be just as accurately effected as in perfectly continuous space; the discontinuity of this space would not be noticed in Euclid’s science, would not be felt at all. If any one should say that we cannot conceive of space as anything else than continuous, I should venture to doubt it and to call attention to the fact that a far advanced, refined scientific training is demanded in order to perceive clearly the essence of continuity and to comprehend that besides rational quantitative relations, also irrational, and besides algebraic, also transcendental quantitative relations are conceivable. All the more beautiful it appears to me that without any notion of measurable quantities and simply by a finite system of simple thought-steps man can advance to the creation of the pure continuous number-domain; and only by this means in my view is it possible for him to render the notion of continuous space clear and definite. The same theory of irrational numbers founded upon the phenomenon of the cut is set forth in the Introduction ` a la th´eorie des fonctions d’une variable by J. Tannery (Paris, 1886). If I rightly understand a passage in the preface to this work, the author has thought out his theory independently, that is, at a time when not only my paper, but Dini’s Fondamenti mentioned in the same preface, was unknown to him. This agreement seems to me a gratifying proof that my conception conforms to the nature of the case, a fact recognised by other mathematicians, e. g., by Pasch in his Einleitung in die Differential- und Integralrechnung (Leipzig, 1883). But I cannot quite agree with Tannery when he calls this theory the development of an idea due to J. Bertrand and contained in his Trait´e d’arithm´etique, consisting in this that an irrational number is defined by the specification of all rational numbers that are less and all those that are greater than the number to be defined. As regards this statement which is repeated by Stolz—apparently without careful investigation—in the preface to the second part of his Vorlesungen u ¨ber allgemeine Arithmetik (Leipzig, 1886), I venture to remark the following: That an irrational number is to be considered as fully defined by the specification just described, this conviction certainly long before the time of Bertrand was the common property of all mathematicians who concerned themselves with the notion of the irrational. Just this manner of determining it is in the mind of every computer who calculates the irrational root of an equation by approximation, and if, as Bertrand does exclusively in his book, (the eighth edition, of the year 1885, lies before me,) one regards the irrational number as the ratio of two measurable quantities, then is this manner of determining it already set forth in the clearest possible way in the celebrated definition which Euclid gives of the equality of two ratios (Elements, V., 5). This same most ancient conviction has been the source of my theory as well as that of Bertrand and many other more or less complete attempts to lay the foundations 11 Dirichlet’s
Vorlesungen u ¨ber Zahlentheorie, § 159 of the second edition, § 160 of the third.
for the introduction of irrational numbers into arithmetic. But though one is so far in perfect agreement with Tannery, yet in an actual examination he cannot fail to observe that Bertrand’s presentation, in which the phenomenon of the cut in its logical purity is not even mentioned, has no similarity whatever to mine, inasmuch as it resorts at once to the existence of a measurable quantity, a notion which for reasons mentioned above I wholly reject. Aside from this fact this method of presentation seems also in the succeeding definitions and proofs, which are based on the postulate of this existence, to present gaps so essential that I still the statement made in my paper (Section VI.),12 √ √ √ regard that the theorem 2 · 3 = 6 has nowhere yet been strictly demonstrated, as justified with respect to this work also, so excellent in many other regards and with which I was unacquainted at that time. R. Dedekind. Harzburg, October 5, 1887.
10 et seq. of this volume.
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. The present memoir soon after its appearance met with both favorable and unfavorable criticisms; indeed serious faults were charged against it. I have been unable to convince myself of the justice of these charges, and I now issue a new edition of the memoir, which for some time has been out of print, without change, adding only the following notes to the first preface. The property which I have employed as the definition of the infinite system had been pointed out before the appearance of my paper by G. Cantor (Ein Beitrag zur Mannigfaltigkeitslehre, Crelle’s Journal, Vol. 84, 1878), as also by Bolzano (Paradoxien des Unendlichen, § 20, 1851). But neither of these authors made the attempt to use this property for the definition of the infinite and upon this foundation to establish with rigorous logic the science of numbers, and just in this consists the content of my wearisome labor which in all its essentials I had completed several years before the appearance of Cantor’s memoir and at a time when the work of Bolzano was unknown to me even by name. For the benefit of those who are interested in and understand the difficulties of such an investigation, I add the following remark. We can lay down an entirely different definition of the finite and infinite, which appears still simpler since the notion of similarity of transformation is not even assumed, viz.: “A system S is said to be finite when it may be so transformed in itself (36) that no proper part (6) of S is transformed in itself; in the contrary case S is called an infinite system.” Now let us attempt to erect our edifice upon this new foundation! We shall soon meet with serious difficulties, and I believe myself warranted in saying that the proof of the perfect agreement of this definition with the former can be obtained only (and then easily) when we are permitted to assume the series of natural numbers as already developed and to make use of the final considerations in (131); and yet nothing is said of all these things in either the one definition or the other! From this we can see how very great is the number of steps in thought needed for such a remodeling of a definition. About a year after the publication of my memoir I became acquainted with G. Frege’s Grundlagen der Arithmetik, which had already appeared in the year 1884. However different the view of the essence of number adopted in that work is from my own, yet it contains, particularly from § 79 on, points of very close contact with my paper, especially with my definition (44). The agreement, to be sure, is not easy to discover on account of the different form of expression; but the positiveness with which the author speaks of the logical inference from n to n + 1 (page 47, below) shows plainly that here he stands upon the same ground with me. In the meantime E. Schr¨oder’s Vorlesungen u ¨ber die Algebra der Logik has been almost completed (1890–1891). Upon the importance of this extremely suggestive work, to which I pay my highest tribute, it is impossible here to enter further; I will simply confess that in spite of the remark made on p. 253 of Part I., I have retained my somewhat clumsy symbols (8) and (17); they make no claim to be adopted generally but are intended simply to serve the purpose of this arithmetic paper to which in my view they are better adapted 19
than sum and product symbols. R. Dedekind. Harzburg, August 24, 1893.
THE NATURE AND MEANING OF NUMBERS. I. SYSTEMS OF ELEMENTS. 1. In what follows I understand by thing every object of our thought. In order to be able easily to speak of things, we designate them by symbols, e. g., by letters, and we venture to speak briefly of the thing a or of a simply, when we mean the thing denoted by a and not at all the letter a itself. A thing is completely determined by all that can be affirmed or thought concerning it. A thing a is the same as b (identical with b), and b the same as a, when all that can be thought concerning a can also be thought concerning b, and when all that is true of b can also be thought of a. That a and b are only symbols or names for one and the same thing is indicated by the notation a = b, and also by b = a. If further b = c, that is, if c as well as a is a symbol for the thing denoted by b, then is also a = c. If the above coincidence of the thing denoted by a with the thing denoted by b does not exist, then are the things a, b said to be different, a is another thing than b, b another thing than a; there is some property belonging to the one that does not belong to the other. 2. It very frequently happens that different things, a, b, c, . . . for some reason can be considered from a common point of view, can be associated in the mind, and we say that they form a system S; we call the things a, b, c, . . . elements of the system S, they are contained in S; conversely, S consists of these elements. Such a system S (an aggregate, a manifold, a totality) as an object of our thought is likewise a thing (1); it is completely determined when with respect to every thing it is determined whether it is an element of S or not.13 The system S is hence the same as the system T , in symbols S = T , when every element of S is also element of T , and every element of T is also element of S. For uniformity of expression it is advantageous to include also the special case where a system S consists of a single (one and only one) element a, i. e., the thing a is element of S, but every thing different from a is not an element of S. On the other hand, we intend here for certain reasons wholly to exclude the empty system which contains no element at all, although for other investigations it may be appropriate to imagine such a system. 3. Definition. A system A is said to be part of a system S when every element of A is also element of S. Since this relation between a system A and 13 In what manner this determination is brought about, and whether we know a way of deciding upon it, is a matter of indifference for all that follows; the general laws to be developed in no way depend upon it; they hold under all circumstances. I mention this expressly because Kronecker not long ago (Crelle’s Journal, Vol. 99, pp. 334–336) has endeavored to impose certain limitations upon the free formation of concepts in mathematics which I do not believe to be justified; but there seems to be no call to enter upon this matter with more detail until the distinguished mathematician shall have published his reasons for the necessity or merely the expediency of these limitations.
a system S will occur continually in what follows, we shall express it briefly by the symbol A 3 S. The inverse symbol S 3 A, by which the same fact might be expressed, for simplicity and clearness I shall wholly avoid, but for lack of a better word I shall sometimes say that S is whole of A, by which I mean to express that among the elements of S are found all the elements of A. Since further every element s of a system S by (2) can be itself regarded as a system, we can hereafter employ the notation s 3 S. 4. Theorem. A 3 A, by reason of (3). 5. Theorem. If A 3 B and B 3 A, then A = B. The proof follows from (3), (2). 6. Definition. A system A is said to be a proper [echter ] part of S, when A is part of S, but different from S. According to (5) then S is not a part of A, i. e., there is in S an element which is not an element of A. 7. Theorem. If A 3 B and B 3 C, which may be denoted briefly by 3 A B 3 C, then is A 3 C, and A is certainly a proper part of C, if A is a proper part of B or if B is a proper part of C. The proof follows from (3), (6). 8. Definition. By the system compounded out of any systems A, B, C, . . . to be denoted by M(A, B, C, . . .) we mean that system whose elements are determined by the following prescription: a thing is considered as element of M(A, B, C, . . .) when and only when it is element of some one of the systems A, B, C, . . . , i. e., when it is element of A, or B, or C, . . . . We include also the case where only a single system A exists; then obviously M(A) = A. We observe further that the system M(A, B, C, . . .) compounded out of A, B, C, . . . is carefully to be distinguished from the system whose elements are the systems A, B, C, . . . themselves. 9. Theorem. The systems A, B, C, . . . are parts of M(A, B, C, . . .). The proof follows from (8), (3). 10. Theorem. If A, B, C, . . . are parts of a system S, then is M(A, B, C, . . .) 3 S. The proof follows from (8), (3). 11. Theorem. If P is part of one of the systems A, B, C, . . . then is P 3 M(A, B, C, . . .). The proof follows from (9), (7). 12. Theorem. If each of the systems P , Q, . . . is part of one of the systems A, B, C, . . . then is M(P, Q, . . .) 3 M(A, B, C, . . .). The proof follows from (11), (10). 13. Theorem. If A is compounded out of any of the systems P , Q, . . . then is A 3 M(P, Q, . . .). Proof. For every element of A is by (8) element of one of the systems P , Q, . . . , consequently by (8) also element of M(P, Q, . . .), whence the theorem follows by (3). 22
14. Theorem. If each of the systems A, B, C, . . . is compounded out of any of the systems P , Q, . . . then is M(A, B, C, . . .) 3 M(P, Q, . . .) The proof follows from (13), (10). 15. Theorem. If each of the systems P , Q, . . . is part of one of the systems A, B, C, . . . , and if each of the latter is compounded out of any of the former, then is M(P, Q, . . .) = M(A, B, C, . . .). The proof follows from (12), (14), (5). 16. Theorem. If A = M(P, Q) and B = M(Q, R) then is M(A, R) = M(P, B). Proof. For by the preceding theorem (15) M(A, R) as well as M(P, B) = M(P, Q, R). 17. Definition. A thing g is said to be common element of the systems A, B, C, . . . , if it is contained in each of these systems (that is in A and in B and in C . . . ). Likewise a system T is said to be a common part of A, B, C, . . . when T is part of each of these systems; and by the community [Gemeinheit] of the systems A, B, C, . . . we understand the perfectly determinate system G(A, B, C, . . .) which consists of all the common elements g of A, B, C, . . . and hence is likewise a common part of those systems. We again include the case where only a single system A occurs; then G(A) (is to be put) = A. But the case may also occur that the systems A, B, C, . . . possess no common element at all, therefore no common part, no community; they are then called systems without common part, and the symbol G(A, B, C, . . .) is meaningless (compare the end of (2)). We shall however almost always in theorems concerning communities leave it to the reader to add in thought the condition of their existence and to discover the proper interpretation of these theorems for the case of nonexistence. 18. Theorem. Every common part of A, B, C, . . . is part of G(A, B, C, . . .). The proof follows from (17). 19. Theorem. Every part of G(A, B, C, . . .) is common part of A, B, C, . . . . The proof follows from (17), (7). 20. Theorem. If each of the systems A, B, C, . . . is whole (3) of one of the systems P , Q, . . . then is G(P, Q, . . .) 3 G(A, B, C, . . .) Proof. For every element of G(P, Q, . . .) is common element of P , Q, . . . , therefore also common element of A, B, C, . . . , which was to be proved. 23
II. TRANSFORMATION OF A SYSTEM. 21. Definition.14 By a transformation [Abbildung] φ of a system S we understand a law according to which to every determinate element s of S there belongs a determinate thing which is called the transform of s and denoted by φ(s); we say also that φ(s) corresponds to the element s, that φ(s) results or is produced from s by the transformation φ, that s is transformed into φ(s) by the transformation φ. If now T is any part of S, then in the transformation φ of S is likewise contained a determinate transformation of T , which for the sake of simplicity may be denoted by the same symbol φ and consists in this that to every element t of the system T there corresponds the same transform φ(t), which t possesses as element of S; at the same time the system consisting of all transforms φ(t) shall be called the transform of T and be denoted by φ(T ), by which also the significance of φ(S) is defined. As an example of a transformation of a system we may regard the mere assignment of determinate symbols or names to its elements. The simplest transformation of a system is that by which each of its elements is transformed into itself; it will be called the identical transformation of the system. For convenience, in the following theorems (22), (23), (24), which deal with an arbitrary transformation φ of an arbitrary system S, we shall denote the transforms of elements s and parts T respectively by s0 and T 0 ; in addition we agree that small and capital italics without accent shall always signify elements and parts of this system S. 22. Theorem.15 If A 3 B then A0 3 B 0 . Proof. For every element of A0 is the transform of an element contained in A, and therefore also in B, and is therefore element of B 0 , which was to be proved. 23. Theorem. The transform of M(A, B, C, . . .) is M(A0 , B 0 , C 0 , . . .). Proof. If we denote the system M(A, B, C, . . .) which by (10) is likewise part of S by M , then is every element of its transform M 0 the transform m0 of an element m of M ; since therefore by (8) m is also element of one of the systems A, B, C, . . . and consequently m0 element of one of the systems A0 , B 0 , C 0 , . . . , and hence by (8) also element of M(A0 , B 0 , C 0 , . . .), we have by (3) M 0 3 M(A0 , B 0 , C 0 , . . .). On the other hand, since A, B, C, . . . are by (9) parts of M , and hence A0 , B 0 , C 0 , . . . by (22) parts of M 0 , we have by (10) M(A0 , B 0 , C 0 , . . .) 3 M 0 . By combination with the above we have by (5) the theorem to be proved M 0 = M(A0 , B 0 , C 0 , . . .). 14 See 15 See
Dirichlet’s Vorlesungen u ¨ber Zahlentheorie, 3d edition, 1879, § 163. theorem 27.
24. Theorem.16 The transform of every common part of A, B, C, . . . , and therefore that of the community G(A, B, C, . . .) is part of G(A0 , B 0 , C 0 , . . .). Proof. For by (22) it is common part of A0 , B 0 , C 0 , . . . , whence the theorem follows by (18). 25. Definition and theorem. If φ is a transformation of a system S, and ψ a transformation of the transform S 0 = φ(S), there always results a transformation θ of S, compounded 17 out of φ and ψ, which consists of this that to every element s of S there corresponds the transform θ(s) = ψ(s0 ) = ψ φ(s) , where again we have put φ(s) = s0 . This transformation θ can be denoted briefly by the symbol ψ φ or ψφ, the transform θ(s) by ψφ(s) where the order of the symbols φ, ψ is to be considered, since in general the symbol φψ has no interpretation and actually has meaning only when ψ(s0 ) 3 s. If now χ signifies a transformation of the system ψ(s0 ) = ψφ(s) and η the transformation χψ of the system S 0 compounded out of ψ and χ, then is χθ(s) = χψ(s0 ) = η(s0 ) = ηφ(s); therefore the compound transformations χθ and ηφ coincide for every element s of S, i. e., χθ = ηφ. In accordance with the meaning of θ and η this theorem can finally be expressed in the form χ ψφ = χψ φ, and this transformation compounded out of φ, ψ, χ can be denoted briefly by χψφ.
III. SIMILARITY OF A TRANSFORMATION. SIMILAR SYSTEMS. 26. Definition. A transformation φ of a system S is said to be similar [¨ ahnlich] or distinct, when to different elements a, b of the system S there always correspond different transforms a0 = φ(a), b0 = φ(b). Since in this case conversely from s0 = t0 we always have s = t, then is every element of the system S 0 = φ(S) the transform s0 of a single, perfectly determinate element s of the system S, and we can therefore set over against the transformation φ of S an inverse transformation of the system S 0 , to be denoted by φ, which consists in this that to every element s0 of S 0 there corresponds the transform φ(s0 ) = s, and obviously this transformation is also similar. It is clear that φ(S 0 ) = S, that further φ is the inverse transformation belonging to φ and that the transformation φφ compounded out of φ and φ by (25) is the identical transformation of S (21). At once we have the following additions to II., retaining the notation there given. 16 See
theorem 29. confusion of this compounding of transformations with that of systems of elements is hardly to be feared. 17 A
27. Theorem.18 If A0 3 B 0 , then A 3 B. Proof. For if a is an element of A then is a0 an element of A0 , therefore also of B 0 , hence = b0 , where b is an element of B; but since from a0 = b0 we always have a = b, then is every element of A also element of B, which was to be proved. 28. Theorem. If A0 = B 0 , then A = B. The proof follows from (27), (4), (5). 29. Theorem.19 If G = G(A, B, C, . . .), then G0 = G(A0 , B 0 , C 0 , . . .). Proof. Every element of G(A0 , B 0 , C 0 , . . .) is certainly contained in S 0 , and is therefore the transform g 0 of an element g contained in S; but since g 0 is common element of A0 , B 0 , C 0 , . . . then by (27) must g be common element of A, B, C, . . . therefore also element of G; hence every element of G(A0 , B 0 , C 0 , . . .) is transform of an element g of G, therefore element of G0 , i. e., G(A0 , B 0 , C 0 , . . .) 3 G0 , and accordingly our theorem follows from (24), (5). 30. Theorem. The identical transformation of a system is always a similar transformation. 31. Theorem. If φ is a similar transformation of S and ψ a similar transformation of φ(S), then is the transformation ψφ of S, compounded of φ and ψ, a similar transformation, and the associated inverse transformation ψ φ = φ ψ. Proof. For to different elements a, b of S correspond different transforms a0 = φ(a), b0 = φ(b), and to these again different transforms ψ(a0 ) = ψφ(a), ψ(b0 ) = ψφ(b) and therefore ψφ is a similar transformation. Besides every element ψφ(s) = ψ(s0 ) of the system ψφ(S) is transformed by ψ into s0 = φ(s) and this by φ into s, therefore ψφ(s) is transformed by φ ψ into s, which was to be proved. 32. Definition. The systems R, S are said to be similar when there exists such a similar transformation φ of S that φ(S) = R, and therefore φ(R) = S. Obviously by (30) every system is similar to itself. 33. Theorem. If R, S are similar systems, then every system Q similar to R is also similar to S. Proof. For if φ, ψ are similar transformations of S, R such that φ(S) = R, ψ(R) = Q, then by (31) ψφ is a similar transformation of S such that ψφ(S) = Q, which was to be proved. 34. Definition. We can therefore separate all systems into classes by putting into a determinate class all systems Q, R, S, . . . , and only those, that are similar to a determinate system R, the representative of the class; according to (33) the class is not changed by taking as representative any other system belonging to it. 18 See 19 See
theorem 22. theorem 24.
35. Theorem. If R, S are similar systems, then is every part of S also similar to a part of R, every proper part of S also similar to a proper part of R. Proof. For if φ is a similar transformation of S, φ(S) = R, and T 3 S, then by (22) is the system similar to T φ(T ) 3 R; if further T is proper part of S, and s an element of S not contained in T , then by (27) the element φ(s) contained in R cannot be contained in φ(T ); hence φ(T ) is proper part of R, which was to be proved.
IV. TRANSFORMATION OF A SYSTEM IN ITSELF. 36. Definition. If φ is a similar or dissimilar transformation of a system S, and φ(S) part of a system Z, then φ is said to be a transformation of S in Z, and we say S is transformed by φ in Z. Hence we call φ a transformation of the system S in itself, when φ(S) 3 S, and we propose in this paragraph to investigate the general laws of such a transformation φ. In doing this we shall use the same notations as in II. and again put φ(s) = s0 , φ(T ) = T 0 . These transforms s0 , T 0 are by (22), (7) themselves again elements or parts of S, like all things designated by italic letters. 37. Definition. K is called a chain [Kette], when K 0 3 K. We remark expressly that this name does not in itself belong to the part K of the system S, but is given only with respect to the particular transformation φ; with reference to another transformation of the system S in itself K can very well not be a chain. 38. Theorem. S is a chain. 39. Theorem. The transform K 0 of a chain K is a chain. Proof. For from K 0 3 K it follows by (22) that (K 0 )0 3 K 0 , which was to be proved. 40. Theorem. If A is part of a chain K, then is also A0 3 K. Proof. For from A 3 K it follows by (22) that A0 3 K 0 , and since by (37) 0 3 K K, therefore by (7) A0 3 K, which was to be proved. 41. Theorem. If the transform A0 is part of a chain L, then is there a chain K, which satisfies the conditions A 3 K, K 0 3 L; and M(A, L) is just such a chain K. Proof. If we actually put K = M(A, L), then by (9) the one condition A 3 K is fulfilled. Since further by (23) K 0 = M(A0 , L0 ) and by hypothesis A0 3 L, L0 3 L, then by (10) is the other condition K 0 3 L also fulfilled and hence it follows because by (9) L 3 K, that also K 0 3 K, i. e., K is a chain, which was to be proved. 42. Theorem. A system M compounded simply out of chains A, B, C, . . . is a chain. 27
Proof. Since by (23) M 0 = M(A0 , B 0 , C 0 , . . .) and by hypothesis A0 3 A, 3 B B, C 0 3 C, . . . therefore by (12) M 0 3 M , which was to be proved. 0
43. Theorem. The community G of chains A, B, C, . . . is a chain. Proof. Since by (17) G is common part of A, B, C, . . . , therefore by (22) G0 common part of A0 , B 0 , C 0 , . . . , and by hypothesis A0 3 A, B 0 3 B, C 0 3 C, . . . , then by (7) G0 is also common part of A, B, C, . . . and hence by (18) also part of G, which was to be proved. 44. Definition. If A is any part of S, we will denote by A0 the community of all those chains (e. g., S) of which A is part; this community A0 exists (17) because A is itself common part of all these chains. Since further by (43) A0 is a chain, we will call A0 the chain of the system A, or briefly the chain of A. This definition too is strictly related to the fundamental determinate transformation φ of the system S in itself, and if later, for the sake of clearness, it is necessary we shall at pleasure use the symbol φ0 (A) instead of A0 , and likewise designate the chain of A corresponding to another transformation ω by ω0 (A). For this very important notion the following theorems hold true. 45. Theorem. A 3 A0 . Proof. For A is common part of all those chains whose community is A0 , whence the theorem follows by (18). 46. Theorem. (A0 )0 3 A0 . Proof. For by (44) A0 is a chain (37). 47. Theorem. If A is part of a chain K, then is also A0 3 K. Proof. For A0 is the community and hence also a common part of all the chains K, of which A is part. 48. Remark. One can easily convince himself that the notion of the chain A0 defined in (44) is completely characterised by the preceding theorems, (45), (46), (47). 49. Theorem. A0 3 (A0 )0 . The proof follows from (45), (22). 50. Theorem. A0 3 A0 . The proof follows from (49), (46), (7). 51. Theorem. If A is a chain, then A0 = A. Proof. Since A is part of the chain A, then by (47) A0 3 A, whence the theorem follows by (45), (5). 52. Theorem. If B 3 A, then B 3 A0 . The proof follows from (45), (7). 53. Theorem. If B 3 A0 , then B0 3 A0 , and conversely. Proof. Because A0 is a chain, then by (47) from B 3 A0 , we also get B0 3 A0 ; conversely, if B0 3 A0 , then by (7) we also get B 3 A0 , because by (45) B 3 B0 . 54. Theorem. If B 3 A, then is B0 3 A0 . 28
The proof follows from (52), (53). 55. Theorem. If B 3 A0 , then is also B 0 3 A0 . Proof. For by (53) B0 3 A0 , and since by (50) B 0 3 B0 , the theorem to be proved follows by (7). The same result, as is easily seen, can be obtained from (22), (46), (7), or also from (40). 56. Theorem. If B 3 A0 , then is (B0 )0 3 (A0 )0 . The proof follows from (53), (22). 57. Theorem and definition. (A0 )0 = (A0 )0 , i. e., the transform of the chain of A is at the same time the chain of the transform of A. Hence we can designate this system in short by A00 and at pleasure call it the chain-transform or transform-chain of A. Withthe clearer notation given in (44) the theorem might be expressed by φ φ0 (A) = φ0 φ(A) . Proof. If for brevity we put (A0 )0 = L, L is a chain (44) and by (45) A0 3 L; hence by (41) there exists a chain K satisfying the conditions A 3 K, K 0 3 L; hence from (47) we have A0 3 K, therefore (A0 )0 3 K 0 , and hence by (7) also (A0 )0 3 L, i. e., (A0 )0 3 (A0 )0 . Since further by (49) A0 3 (A0 )0 , and by (44), (39) (A0 )0 is a chain, then by (47) also (A0 )0 3 (A0 )0 , whence the theorem follows by combining with the preceding result (5). 58. Theorem. A0 = M(A, A00 ), i. e., the chain of A is compounded out of A and the transform-chain of A. Proof. If for brevity we again put L = A00 = (A0 )0 = (A0 )0 and K = M(A, L), then by (45) A0 3 L, and since L is a chain, by (41) the same thing is true of K; since further A 3 K (9), therefore by (47) A0 3 K. On the other hand, since by (45) A 3 A0 , and by (46) also L 3 A0 , then by (10) also K 3 A0 , whence the theorem to be proved A0 = K follows by combining with the preceding result (5). 59. Theorem of complete induction. In order to show that the chain A0 is part of any system Σ—be this latter part of S or not—it is sufficient to show, ρ. that A 3 Σ, and σ. that the transform of every common element of A0 and Σ is likewise element of Σ. 29
Proof. For if ρ is true, then by (45) the community G = G(A0 , Σ) certainly exists, and by (18) A 3 G; since besides by (17) G 3 A0 , then is G also part of our system S, which by φ is transformed in itself and at once by (55) we have also G0 3 A0 . If then σ is likewise true, i. e. if G0 3 Σ, then must G0 as common part of the systems A0 , Σ by (18) be part of their community G, i. e. G is a chain (37), and since, as above noted, A 3 G, then by (47) is also A0 3 G, and therefore by combination with the preceding result G = A0 , hence by (17) also A0 3 Σ, which was to be proved. 60. The preceding theorem, as will be shown later, forms the scientific basis for the form of demonstration known by the name of complete induction (the inference from n to n + 1); it can also be stated in the following manner: In order to show that all elements of the chain A0 possess a certain property E (or that a theorem S dealing with an undetermined thing n actually holds good for all elements n of the chain A0 ) it is sufficient to show ρ. that all elements a of the system A possess the property E (or that S holds for all a’s) and σ. that to the transform n0 of every such element n of A0 possessing the property E, belongs the same property E (or that the theorem S, as soon as it holds for an element n of A0 , certainly must also hold for its transform n0 ). Indeed, if we denote by Σ the system of all things possessing the property E (or for which the theorem S holds) the complete agreement of the present manner of stating the theorem with that employed in (59) is immediately obvious. 61. Theorem. The chain of M(A, B, C, . . .) is M(A0 , B0 , C0 , . . .). Proof. If we designate by M the former, by K the latter system, then by (42) K is a chain. Since then by (45) each of the systems A, B, C, . . . is part of one of the systems A0 , B0 , C0 , . . . , and therefore by (12) M 3 K, then by (47) we also have M0 3 K. On the other hand, since by (9) each of the systems A, B, C, . . . is part of M , and hence by (45), (7) also part of the chain M0 , then by (47) must also each of the systems A0 , B0 , C0 , . . . be part of M0 , therefore by (10) K 3 M0 whence by combination with the preceding result follows the theorem to be proved M0 = K (5). 62. Theorem. The chain of G(A, B, C, . . .) is part of G(A0 , B0 , C0 , . . .). Proof. If we designate by G the former, by K the latter system, then by (43) K is a chain. Since then each of the systems A0 , B0 , C0 , . . . by (45) is 30
whole of one of the systems A, B, C, . . . , and hence by (20) G 3 K, therefore by (47) we obtain the theorem to be proved G0 3 K. 63. Theorem. If K 0 3 L 3 K, and therefore K is a chain, L is also a chain. If the same is proper part of K, and U the system of all those elements of K which are not contained in L, and if further the chain U0 is proper part of K, and V the system of all those elements of K which are not contained in U0 , then is K = M(U0 , V ) and L = M(U00 , V ). If finally L = K 0 then V 3 V 0 . The proof of this theorem of which (as of the two preceding) we shall make no use may be left for the reader.
V. THE FINITE AND INFINITE. 64. Definition.20 A system S is said to be infinite when it is similar to a proper part of itself (32); in the contrary case S is said to be a finite system. 65. Theorem. Every system consisting of a single element is finite. Proof. For such a system possesses no proper part (2), (6). 66. Theorem. There exist infinite systems. Proof.21 My own realm of thoughts, i. e., the totality S of all things, which can be objects of my thought, is infinite. For if s signifies an element of S, then is the thought s0 , that s can be object of my thought, itself an element of S. If we regard this as transform φ(s) of the element s then has the transformation φ of S, thus determined, the property that the transform S 0 is part of S; and S 0 is certainly proper part of S, because there are elements in S (e. g., my own ego) which are different from such thought s0 and therefore are not contained in S 0 . Finally it is clear that if a, b are different elements of S, their transforms a0 , b0 are also different, that therefore the transformation φ is a distinct (similar) transformation (26). Hence S is infinite, which was to be proved. 67. Theorem. If R, S are similar systems, then is R finite or infinite according as S is finite or infinite. Proof. If S is infinite, therefore similar to a proper part S 0 of itself, then if R and S are similar, S 0 by (33) must be similar to R and by (35) likewise similar to a proper part of R, which therefore by (33) is itself similar to R; therefore R is infinite, which was to be proved. 20 If one does not care to employ the notion of similar systems (32) he must say: S is said to be infinite, when there is a proper part of S (6) in which S can be distinctly (similarly) transformed (26), (36). In this form I submitted the definition of the infinite which forms the core of my whole investigation in September, 1882, to G. Cantor and several years earlier to Schwarz and Weber. All other attempts that have come to my knowledge to distinguish the infinite from the finite seem to me to have met with so little success that I think I may be permitted to forego any criticism of them. 21 A similar consideration is found in § 13 of the Paradoxien des Unendlichen by Bolzano (Leipzig, 1851).
68. Theorem. Every system S, which possesses an infinite part is likewise infinite; or, in other words, every part of a finite system is finite. Proof. If T is infinite and there is hence such a similar transformation ψ of T , that ψ(T ) is a proper part of T , then, if T is part of S, we can extend this transformation ψ to a transformation φ of S in which, if s denotes any element of S, we put φ(s) = ψ(s) or φ(s) = s according as s is element of T or not. This transformation φ is a similar one; for, if a, b denote different elements of S, then if both are contained in T , the transform φ(a) = ψ(a) is different from the transform φ(b) = ψ(b), because ψ is a similar transformation; if further a is contained in T , but b not, then is φ(a) = ψ(a) different from φ(b) = b, because ψ(a) is contained in T ; if finally neither a nor b is contained in T then also is φ(a) = a different from φ(b) = b, which was to be shown. Since further ψ(T ) is part of T , because by (7) also part of S, it is clear that also φ(S) 3 S. Since finally ψ(T ) is proper part of T there exists in T and therefore also in S, an element t, not contained in ψ(T ) = φ(T ); since then the transform φ(s) of every element s not contained in T is equal to s, and hence is different from t, t cannot be contained in φ(S); hence φ(S) is proper part of S and consequently S is infinite, which was to be proved. 69. Theorem. Every system which is similar to a part of a finite system, is itself finite. The proof follows from (67), (68). 70. Theorem. If a is an element of S, and if the aggregate T of all the elements of S different from a is finite, then is also S finite. Proof. We have by (64) to show that if φ denotes any similar transformation of S in itself, the transform φ(S) or S 0 is never a proper part of S but always = S. Obviously S = M(a, T ) and hence by (23), if the transforms are again denoted by accents, S 0 = M(a0 , T 0 ), and, on account of the similarity of the transformation φ, a0 is not contained in T 0 (26). Since further by hypothesis S 0 3 S, then must a0 and likewise every element of T 0 either = a, or be element of T . If then—a case which we will treat first—a is not contained in T 0 , then must T 0 3 T and hence T 0 = T , because φ is a similar transformation and because T is a finite system; and since a0 , as remarked, is not contained in T 0 , i. e., not in T , then must a0 = a, and hence in this case we actually have S 0 = S as was stated. In the opposite case when a is contained in T 0 and hence is the transform b0 of an element b contained in T , we will denote by U the aggregate of all those elements u of T , which are different from b; then T = M(b, U ) and by (15) S = M(a, b, U ), hence S 0 = M(a0 , a, U 0 ). We now determine a new transformation ψ of T in which we put ψ(b) = a0 , and generally ψ(u) = u0 , whence by (23) ψ(T ) = M(a0 , U 0 ). Obviously ψ is a similar transformation, because φ was such, and because a is not contained in U and therefore also a0 not in U 0 . Since further a and every element u is different from b then (on account of the similarity of φ) must also a0 and every element u0 be different from a and consequently contained in T ; hence ψ(T ) 3 T and since T is finite,
therefore must ψ(T ) = T , and M(a0 , U 0 ) = T . From this by (15) we obtain M(a0 , a, U 0 ) = M(a, T ) i. e., according to the preceding S 0 = S. Therefore in this case also the proof demanded has been secured.
VI. SIMPLY INFINITE SYSTEMS. SERIES OF NATURAL NUMBERS. 71. Definition. A system N is said to be simply infinite when there exists a similar transformation φ of N in itself such that N appears as chain (44) of an element not contained in φ(N ). We call this element, which we shall denote in what follows by the symbol 1, the base-element of N and say the simply infinite system N is set in order [geordnet] by this transformation φ. If we retain the earlier convenient symbols for transforms and chains (IV) then the essence of a simply infinite system N consists in the existence of a transformation φ of N and an element 1 which satisfy the following conditions α, β, γ, δ: α. N 0 3 N . β. N = 10 . γ. The element 1 is not contained in N 0 . δ. The transformation φ is similar. Obviously it follows from α, γ, δ that every simply infinite system N is actually an infinite system (64) because it is similar to a proper part N 0 of itself. 72. Theorem. In every infinite system S a simply infinite system N is contained as a part. Proof. By (64) there exists a similar transformation φ of S such that φ(S) or S 0 is a proper part of S; hence there exists an element 1 in S which is not contained in S 0 . The chain N = 10 , which corresponds to this transformation φ of the system S in itself (44), is a simply infinite system set in order by φ; for the characteristic conditions α, β, γ, δ in (71) are obviously all fulfilled. 73. Definition. If in the consideration of a simply infinite system N set in order by a transformation φ we entirely neglect the special character of the elements; simply retaining their distinguishability and taking into account only the relations to one another in which they are placed by the order-setting transformation φ, then are these elements called natural numbers or ordinal numbers or simply numbers, and the base-element 1 is called the base-number of the number-series N . With reference to this freeing the elements from every other content (abstraction) we are justified in calling numbers a free creation of the human mind. The relations or laws which are derived entirely from the conditions α, β, γ, δ in (71) and therefore are always the same in all ordered simply infinite 33
systems, whatever names may happen to be given to the individual elements (compare 134), form the first object of the science of numbers or arithmetic. From the general notions and theorems of IV. about the transformation of a system in itself we obtain immediately the following fundamental laws where a, b, . . . m, n, . . . always denote elements of N , therefore numbers, A, B, C, . . . parts of N , a0 , b0 , . . . m0 , n0 , . . . A0 , B 0 , C 0 . . . the corresponding transforms, which are produced by the order-setting transformation φ and are always elements or parts of N ; the transform n0 of a number n is also called the number following n. 74. Theorem. Every number n by (45) is contained in its chain n0 and by (53) the condition n 3 m0 is equivalent to n0 3 m0 . 75. Theorem. By (57) n00 = (n0 )0 = (n0 )0 . 76. Theorem. By (46) n00 3 n0 . 77. Theorem. By (58) n0 = M(n, n00 ). 78. Theorem. N = M(1, N 0 ), hence every number different from the basenumber 1 is element of N 0 , i. e., transform of a number. The proof follows from (77) and (71). 79. Theorem. N is the only number-chain containing the base-number 1. Proof. For if 1 is element of a number-chain K, then by (47) the associated chain N 3 K, hence N = K, because it is self-evident that K 3 N . 80. Theorem of complete induction (inference from n to n0 ). In order to show that a theorem holds for all numbers n of a chain m0 , it is sufficient to show, ρ. that it holds for n = m, and σ. that from the validity of the theorem for a number n of the chain m0 its validity for the following number n0 always follows. This results immediately from the more general theorem (59) or (60). The most frequently occurring case is where m = 1 and therefore m0 is the complete number-series N .
VII. GREATER AND LESS NUMBERS. 81. Theorem. Every number n is different from the following number n0 . Proof by complete induction (80): ρ. The theorem is true for the number n = 1, because it is not contained in N 0 (71), while the following number 10 as transform of the number 1 contained in N is element of N 0 . σ. If the theorem is true for a number n and we put the following number n0 = p, then is n different from p, whence by (26) on account of the similarity (71) of the order-setting transformation φ it follows that n0 , and therefore p, is 34
different from p0 . Hence the theorem holds also for the number p following n, which was to be proved. 82. Theorem. In the transform-chain n00 of a number n by (74), (75) is contained its transform n0 , but not the number n itself. Proof by complete induction (80): ρ. The theorem is true for n = 1, because 100 = N 0 , and because by (71) the base-number 1 is not contained in N 0 . σ. If the theorem is true for a number n, and we again put n0 = p, then is n not contained in p0 , therefore is it different from every number q contained in p0 , whence by reason of the similarity of φ it follows that n0 , and therefore p, is different from every number q 0 contained in p00 , and is hence not contained in p00 . Therefore the theorem holds also for the number p following n, which was to be proved. 83. Theorem. The transform-chain n00 is proper part of the chain n0 . The proof follows from (76), (74), (82). 84. Theorem. From m0 = n0 it follows that m = n. Proof. Since by (74) m is contained in m0 , and m0 = n0 = M(n, n00 ) by (77), then if the theorem were false and hence m different from n, m would be contained in the chain n00 , hence by (74) also m0 3 n00 , i. e., n0 3 n00 ; but this contradicts theorem (83). Hence our theorem is established. 85. Theorem. If the number n is not contained in the number-chain K, then is K 3 n00 . Proof by complete induction (80): ρ. By (78) the theorem is true for n = 1. σ. If the theorem is true for a number n, then is it also true for the following number, p = n0 ; for if p is not contained in the number-chain K, then by (40) n also cannot be contained in K and hence by our hypothesis K 3 n00 ; now since by (77) n00 = p0 = M(p, p00 ), hence K 3 M(p, p00 ) and p is not contained in K, then must K 3 p00 , which was to be proved. 86. Theorem. If the number n is not contained in the number-chain K, but its transform n0 is, then K = n00 . Proof. Since n is not contained in K, then by (85) K 3 n00 , and since n0 3 K, then by (47) is also n00 3 K, and hence K = n00 , which was to be proved. 87. Theorem. In every number-chain K there exists one, and by (84) only one, number k, whose chain k0 = K. Proof. If the base-number 1 is contained in K, then by (79) K = N = 10 . In the opposite case let Z be the system of all numbers not contained in K; since the base-number 1 is contained in Z, but Z is only a proper part of the number-series N , then by (79) Z cannot be a chain, i. e., Z 0 cannot be part of Z; hence there exists in Z a number n, whose transform n0 is not contained in 35
Z, and is therefore certainly contained in K; since further n is contained in Z, and therefore not in K, then by (86) K = n00 , and hence k = n0 , which was to be proved. 88. Theorem. If m, n are different numbers then by (83), (84) one and only one of the chains m0 , n0 is proper part of the other and either n0 3 m00 or m0 3 n00 . Proof. If n is contained in m0 , and hence by (74) also n0 3 m0 , then m can not be contained in the chain n0 (because otherwise by (74) we should have m0 3 n0 , therefore m0 = n0 , and hence by (84) also m = n) and thence it follows by (85) that n0 3 m00 . In the contrary case, when n is not contained in the chain m0 , we must have by (85) m0 3 n00 , which was to be proved. 89. Definition. The number m is said to be less than the number n and at the same time n greater than m, in symbols m < n,
n > m,
when the condition n0 3 m00 is fulfilled, which by (74) may also be expressed n 3 m00 . 90. Theorem. If m, n are any numbers, then always one and only one of the following cases λ, µ, ν occurs: λ. m = n, n = m, i. e., m0 = n0 µ. m < n, n > m, i. e., n0 3 m00 ν. m > n, n < m, i. e., m0 3 n00 . Proof. For if λ occurs (84) then can neither µ nor ν occur because by (83) we never have n0 3 n00 . But if λ does not occur then by (88) one and only one of the cases µ, ν occurs, which was to be proved. 91. Theorem. n < n0 . Proof. For the condition for the case ν in (90) is fulfilled by m = n0 . 92. Definition. To express that m is either = n or < n, hence not > n (90) we use the symbols m 5 n or also n = m and we say m is at most equal to n, and n is at least equal to m. 93. Theorem. Each of the conditions m 5 n,
m < n0 ,
is equivalent to each of the others. 36
n0 3 m0
Proof. For if m 5 n, then from λ, µ in (90) we always have n0 3 m0 , because by (76) m00 3 m. Conversely, if n0 3 m0 , and therefore by (74) also n 3 m0 , it follows from m0 = M(m, m00 ) that either n = m, or n 3 m00 , i. e., n > m. Hence the condition m 5 n is equivalent to n0 3 m0 . Besides it follows from (22), (27), (75) that this condition n0 3 m0 is again equivalent to n00 3 m00 , i. e., by µ in (90) to m < n0 , which was to be proved. 94. Theorem. Each of the conditions m0 5 n,
m0 < n0 ,
m k (89), whence at once from (90) it follows that there exists in T one and only one least number, which was to be proved. 97. Theorem. The least number of the chain n0 is n, and the base-number 1 is the least of all numbers. Proof. For by (74), (93) the condition m 3 n0 is equivalent to m = n. Or our theorem also follows immediately from the proof of the preceding theorem, because if in that we assume T = n0 , evidently k = n (51). 98. Definition. If n is any number, then will we denote by Zn the system of all numbers that are not greater than n, and hence not contained in n00 . The condition m 3 Zn by (92), (93) is obviously equivalent to each of the following conditions: m 5 n,
m < n0 ,
99. Theorem. 1 3 Zn and n 3 Zn . 37
n0 3 m0 .
The proof follows from (98) or from (71) and (82). 100. Theorem. Each of the conditions equivalent by (98) m 3 Zn , m 5 n, m < n0 , n0 3 m0 is also equivalent to the condition Zm 3 Zn . Proof. For if m 3 Zn , and hence m 5 n, and if l 3 Zm , and hence l 5 m, then by (95) also l 5 n, i. e., l 3 Zn ; if therefore m 3 Zn , then is every element l of the system Zm also element of Zn , i. e., Zm 3 Zn . Conversely, if Zm 3 Zn , then by (7) must also m 3 Zn , because by (99) m 3 Zm , which was to be proved. 101. Theorem. The conditions for the cases λ, µ, ν in (90) may also be put in the following form: λ. µ. ν.
m = n, m < n, m > n,
n = m, n > m, n < m,
Zm = Zn Zm0 3 Zn Zn0 3 Zm
The proof follows immediately from (90) if we observe that by (100) the conditions n0 3 m0 and Zm 3 Zn are equivalent. 102. Theorem. Z1 = 1. Proof. For by (99) the base-number 1 is contained in Z1 , while by (78) every number different from 1 is contained in 100 , hence by (98) not in Z1 , which was to be proved. 103. Theorem. By (98) N = M(Zn , n00 ). 104. Theorem. n = G(Zn , n0 ), i. e., n is the only common element of the system Zn and n0 . Proof. From (99) and (74) it follows that n is contained in Zn and n0 ; but every element of the chain n0 , different from n by (77) is contained in n00 , and hence by (98) not in Zn , which was to be proved. 105. Theorem. By (91), (98) the number n0 is not contained in Zn . 106. Theorem. If m < n, then is Zm proper part of Zn and conversely. Proof. If m < n, then by (100) Zm 3 Zn , and since the number n, by (99) contained in Zn , can by (98) not be contained in Zm because n > m, therefore Zm is proper part of Zn . Conversely if Zm is proper part of Zn then by (100) m 5 n, and since m cannot be = n, because otherwise Zm = Zn , we must have m < n, which was to be proved. 107. Theorem. Zn is proper part of Zn0 . The proof follows from (106), because by (91) n < n0 . 108. Theorem. Zn0 = M(Zn , n0 ). 38
Proof. For every number contained in Zn0 , by (98) is 5 n0 , hence either = n0 or < n0 , and therefore by (98) element of Zn . Therefore certainly Zn0 3 M(Zn , n0 ). Since conversely by (107) Zn 3 Zn0 and by (99) n0 3 Zn0 , then by (10) we have M(Zn , n0 ) 3 Zn0 , whence our theorem follows by (5). 109. Theorem. The transform Zn0 of the system Zn is proper part of the system Zn0 . Proof. For every number contained in Zn0 is the transform m0 of a number m contained in Zn , and since m 5 n, and hence by (94) m0 5 n0 , we have by (98) Zn0 3 Zn0 . Since further the number 1 by (99) is contained in Zn0 , but by (71) is not contained in the transform Zn0 , then is Zn0 proper part of Zn0 , which was to be proved. 110. Theorem. Zn0 = M(1, Zn0 ). Proof. Every number of the system Zn0 different from 1 by (78) is the transform m0 of a number m and this must be 5 n, and hence by (98) contained in Zn (because otherwise m > n, hence by (94) also m0 > n0 and consequently by (98) m0 would not be contained in Zn0 ); but from m 3 Zn we have m0 3 Zn0 , and hence certainly Zn0 3 M(1, Zn0 ). Since conversely by (99) 1 3 Zn , and by (109) Zn0 3 Zn0 , then by (10) we have M(1, Zn0 ) 3 Zn0 and hence our theorem follows by (5). 111. Definition. If in a system E of numbers there exists an element g, which is greater than every other number contained in E, then g is said to be the greatest number of the system E, and by (90) there can evidently be only one such greatest number in E. If a system consists of a single number, then is this number itself the greatest number of the system. 112. Theorem. By (98) n is the greatest number of the system Zn . 113. Theorem. If there exists in E a greatest number g, then is E 3 Zg . Proof. For every number contained in E is 5 g, and hence by (98) contained in Zg , which was to be proved. 114. Theorem. If E is part of a system Zn , or what amounts to the same thing, there exists a number n such that all numbers contained in E are 5 n, then E possesses a greatest number g. Proof. The system of all numbers p satisfying the condition E 3 Zp —and by our hypothesis such numbers exist—is a chain (37), because by (107), (7) it follows also that E 3 Zp0 , and hence by (87) = g0 , where g signifies the least of these numbers (96), (97). Hence also E 3 Zg , therefore by (98) every number contained in E is 5 g, and we have only to show that the number g is itself contained in E. This is immediately obvious if g = 1, for then by (102) Zg , and consequently also E consists of the single number 1. But if g is different from 1 and consequently by (78) the transform f 0 of a number f , then by (108) is 39
E 3 M(Zf , g); if therefore g were not contained in E, then would E 3 Zf , and there would consequently be among the numbers p a number f by (91) < g, which is contrary to what precedes; hence g is contained in E, which was to be proved. 115. Definition. If l < m and m < n we say the number m lies between l and n (also between n and l). 116. Theorem. There exists no number lying between n and n0 . Proof. For as soon as m < n0 , and hence by (93) m 5 n, then by (90) we cannot have n < m, which was to be proved. 117. Theorem. If t is a number in T , but not the least (96), then there exists in T one and only one next less number s, i. e., a number s such that s < t, and that there exists in T no number lying between s and t. Similarly, if t is not the greatest number in T (111) there always exists in T one and only one next greater number u, i. e., a number u such that t < u, and that there exists in T no number lying between t and u. At the same time in T t is next greater than s and next less than u. Proof. If t is not the least number in T , then let E be the system of all those numbers of T that are < t; then by (98) E 3 Zt , and hence by (114) there exists in E a greatest number s obviously possessing the properties stated in the theorem, and also it is the only such number. If further t is not the greatest number in T , then by (96) there certainly exists among all the numbers of T , that are > t, a least number u, which and which alone possesses the properties stated in the theorem. In like manner the correctness of the last part of the theorem is obvious. 118. Theorem. In N the number n0 is next greater than n, and n next less than n0 . The proof follows from (116), (117).
VIII. FINITE AND INFINITE PARTS OF THE NUMBER-SERIES. 119. Theorem. Every system Zn in (98) is finite. Proof by complete induction (80). ρ. By (65), (102) the theorem is true for n = 1. σ. If Zn is finite, then from (108) and (70) it follows that Zn0 is also finite, which was to be proved. 120. Theorem. If m, n are different numbers, then are Zm , Zn dissimilar systems. Proof. By reason of the symmetry we may by (90) assume that m < n; then by (106) Zm is proper part of Zn , and since by (119) Zn is finite, then by (64) Zm and Zn cannot be similar, which was to be proved.
121. Theorem. Every part E of the number-series N , which possesses a greatest number (111), is finite. The proof follows from (113), (119), (68). 122. Theorem. Every part U of the number-series N , which possesses no greatest number, is simply infinite (71). Proof. If u is any number in U , there exists in U by (117) one and only one next greater number than u, which we will denote by ψ(u) and regard as transform of u. The thus perfectly determined transformation ψ of the system U has obviously the property α. ψ(U ) 3 U , i. e., U transformed in itself by ψ. If further u, v are different numbers in U , then by symmetry we may by (90) assume that u < v; thus by (117) it follows from the definition of ψ that ψ(u) 5 v and v < ψ(v), and hence by (95) ψ(u) < ψ(v); therefore by (90) the transforms ψ(u), ψ(v) are different, i. e., δ. the transformation ψ is similar. Further, if u1 denotes the least number (96) of the system U , then every number u contained in U is = u1 , and since generally u < ψ(u), then by (95) u1 < ψ(u), and therefore by (90) u1 is different from ψ(u), i. e., γ. the element u1 of U is not contained in ψ(u). Therefore ψ(U ) is proper part of U and hence by (64) U is an infinite system. If then in agreement with (44) we denote by ψ0 (V ), when V is any part of U , the chain of V corresponding to the transformation ψ, we wish to show finally that β. U = ψ0 (u1 ). In fact, since every such chain ψ0 (V ) by reason of its definition (44) is a part of the system U transformed in itself by ψ, then evidently is ψ0 (u1 ) 3 U ; conversely it is first of all obvious from (45) that the element u1 contained in U is certainly contained in ψ0 (u1 ); but if we assume that there exist elements of U , that are not contained in ψ0 (u1 ), then must there be among them by (96) a least number w, and since by what precedes this is different from the least number u1 of the system U , then by (117) must there exist in U also a number v which is next less than w, whence it follows at once that w = φ(v); since therefore v < w, then must v by reason of the definition of w certainly be contained in ψ0 (u1 ); but from this by (55) it follows that also ψ(v), and hence w must be contained in ψ0 (u1 ), and since this is contrary to the definition of w, our foregoing hypothesis is inadmissible; therefore U 3 ψ0 (u1 ) and hence also U = ψ0 (u1 ) as stated. From α, β, γ, δ it then follows by (71) that U is a simply infinite system set in order by ψ, which was to be proved. 123. Theorem. In consequence of (121), (122) any part T of the numberseries N is finite or simply infinite, according as a greatest number exists or does not exist in T .
IX. DEFINITION OF A TRANSFORMATION OF THE NUMBER-SERIES BY INDUCTION. 124. In what follows we denote numbers by small Italics and retain throughout all symbols of the previous sections VI. to VIII., while Ω designates an arbitrary system whose elements are not necessarily contained in N . 125. Theorem. If there is given an arbitrary (similar or dissimilar) transformation θ of a system Ω in itself, and besides a determinate element ω in Ω, then to every number n corresponds one transformation ψn and one only of the associated number-system Zn explained in (98), which satisfies the conditions:22 I. ψn Zn 3 Ω II. ψn (1) = ω III. ψn (t0 ) = θψn (t), if t < n, where the symbol θψn has the meaning given in (25). Proof by complete induction (80). ρ. The theorem is true for n = 1. In this case indeed by (102) the system Zn consists of the single number 1, and the transformation ψ1 is therefore completely defined by II alone so that I is fulfilled while III drops out entirely. σ. If the theorem is true for a number n then we show that it is also true for the following number p = n0 , and we begin by proving that there can be only a single corresponding transformation ψp of the system Zp . In fact, if a transformation ψp satisfies the conditions I0 . ψp (Zp ) 3 Ω II0 . ψp (1) = ω III0 . ψp (m0 ) = θψp (m), when m < p, then there is also contained in it by (21), because Zn 3 Zp (107) a transformation of Zn which obviously satisfies the same conditions I, II, III as ψn , and therefore coincides throughout with ψn ; for all numbers contained in Zn , and hence (98) for all numbers m which are < p, i. e., 5 n, must therefore ψp (m) = ψn (m) (m) whence there follows, as a special case, ψp (n) = ψn (n);
since further by (105), (108) p is the only number of the system Zp not contained in Zn , and since by III0 and (n) we must also have ψp (p) = θψn (n)
there follows the correctness of our foregoing statement that there can be only one transformation ψp of the system Zp satisfying the conditions I0 , II0 , III0 , 22 For clearness here and in the following theorem (126) I have especially mentioned condition I., although properly it is a consequence of II. and III.
because by the conditions (m) and (p) just derived ψp is completely reduced to ψn . We have next to show conversely that this transformation ψp of the system Zp completely determined by (m) and (p) actually satisfies the conditions I0 , II0 , III0 . Obviously I0 follows from (m) and (p) with reference to I, and because θ(Ω) 3 Ω. Similarly II0 follows from (m) and II, since by (99) the number 1 is contained in Zn . The correctness of III0 follows first for those numbers m which are < n from (m) and III, and for the single number m = n yet remaining it results from (p) and (n). Thus it is completely established that from the validity of our theorem for the number n always follows its validity for the following number p, which was to be proved. 126. Theorem of the definition by induction. If there is given an arbitrary (similar or dissimilar) transformation θ of a system Ω in itself, and besides a determinate element ω in Ω, then there exists one and only one transformation ψ of the number-series N , which satisfies the conditions I. ψ(N ) 3 Ω II. ψ(1) = ω III. ψ(n0 ) = θψ(n), where n represents every number. Proof. Since, if there actually exists such a transformation ψ, there is contained in it by (21) a transformation ψn , of the system Zn , which satisfies the conditions I, II, III stated in (125), then because there exists one and only one such transformation ψn must necessarily ψ(n) = ψn (n).
Since thus ψ is completely determined it follows also that there can exist only one such transformation ψ (see the closing remark in (130)). That conversely the transformation ψ determined by (n) also satisfies our conditions I, II, III, follows easily from (n) with reference to the properties I, II and (p) shown in (125), which was to be proved. 127. Theorem. Under the hypotheses made in the foregoing theorem, ψ(T 0 ) = θψ(T ), where T denotes any part of the number-series N . Proof. For if t denotes every number of the system T , then ψ(T 0 ) consists of all elements ψ(t0 ), and θψ(T ) of all elements θψ(t); hence our theorem follows because by III in (126) ψ(t0 ) = θψ(t). 128. Theorem. If we maintain the same hypotheses and denote by θ0 the chains (44) which correspond to the transformation θ of the system Ω in itself, then is ψ(N ) = θ0 (ω). Proof. We show first by complete induction (80) that ψ(N ) 3 θ0 (ω), i. e., that every transform ψ(n) is also element of θ0 (ω). In fact, 43
ρ. this theorem is true for n = 1, because by (126, II) ψ(1) = ω, and because by (45) ω 3 θ0 (ω). σ. If the theorem is true for a number n, and hence ψ(n) 3 θ0 (ω), then by 3 θ0 (ω), i. e., by (126, III) ψ(n0 ) 3 θ0 (ω), hence the theorem (55) also θ ψ(n) is true for the following number n0 , which was to be proved. In order further to show that every element ν of the chain θ0 (ω) is contained in ψ(N ), therefore that θ0 (ω) 3 ψ(N ) we likewise apply complete induction, i. e., theorem (59) transferred to Ω and the transformation θ. In fact, ρ. the element ω = ψ(1), and hence is contained in ψ(N ). σ. If ν is a common element of the chain θ0 (ω) and the system ψ(N ), then ν = ψ(n), where n denotes a number, and by (126, III) we get θ(ν) = θψ(n) = ψ(n0 ), and therefore θ(ν) is contained in ψ(N ), which was to be proved. From the theorems just established, ψ(N ) 3 θ0 (ω) and θ0 (ω) 3 ψ(N ), we get by (5) ψ(N ) = θ0 (ω), which was to be proved. 129. Theorem. Under the same hypotheses we have generally: ψ(n0 ) = θ0 ψ(n) . Proof by complete induction (80). For ρ. By (128) the theorem holds for n = 1, since 10 = N and ψ(1) = ω. σ. If the theorem is true for a number n, then θ ψ(n0 ) = θ θ0 ψ(n) ; since by (127), (75) θ ψ(n0 ) = ψ(n00 ), and by (57), (126, III) θ θ0 ψ(n) = θ0 θ ψ(n) = θ0 ψ(n0 ) , we get ψ(n00 ) = θ0 ψ(n0 ) , i. e., the theorem is true for the number n0 following n, which was to be proved. 130. Remark. Before we pass to the most important applications of the theorem of definition by induction proved in (126), (sections X–XIV), it is worth while to call attention to a circumstance by which it is essentially distinguished from the theorem of demonstration by induction proved in (80) or rather in (59), (60), however close may seem the relation between the former and the latter. For while the theorem (59) is true quite generally for every chain A0 where A is any part of a system S transformed in itself by any transformation φ (IV), the case is quite different with the theorem (126), which declares only the existence of a consistent (or one-to-one) transformation ψ of the simply infinite system 10 . If in the latter theorem (still maintaining the hypotheses regarding Ω and θ) we replace the number-series 10 by an arbitrary chain A0 out of such a system 44
S, and define a transformation ψ of A0 in Ω in a manner analogous to that in (126, II, III) by assuming that ρ. to every element a of A there is to correspond a determinate element ψ(a) selected from Ω, and σ. for every element n contained in A0 and its transform n0 = φ(n), the condition ψ(n0 ) = θψ(n) is to hold, then would the case very frequently occur that such a transformation ψ does not exist, since these conditions ρ, σ may prove incompatible, even though the freedom of choice contained in ρ be restricted at the outset to conform to the condition σ. An example will be sufficient to convince one of this. If the system S consisting of the different elements a and b is so transformed in itself by φ that a0 = b, b0 = a, then obviously a0 = b0 = S; suppose further the system Ω consisting of the different elements α, β, and γ be so transformed in itself by θ that θ(α) = β, θ(β) = γ, θ(γ) = α; if we now demand a transformation ψ of a0 in Ω such that ψ(a) = α, and that besides for every element n contained in a0 always ψ(n0 ) = θψ(n), we meet a contradiction; since for n = a, we get ψ(b) = θ(α) = β, and hence for n = b, we must have ψ(a) = θ(β) = γ, while we had assumed ψ(a) = α. But if there exists a transformation ψ of A0 in Ω, which satisfies the foregoing conditions ρ, σ without contradiction, then from (60) it follows easily that it is completely determined; for if the transformation χ satisfies the same conditions, then we have, generally, χ(n) = ψ(n), since by ρ this theorem is true for all elements n = a contained in A, and since if it is true for an element n of A0 it must by σ be true also for its transform n0 . 131. In order to bring out clearly the import of our theorem (126), we will here insert a consideration which is useful for other investigations also, e. g., for the so-called group-theory. We consider a system Ω, whose elements allow a certain combination such that from an element ν by the effect of an element ω, there always results again a determinate element of the same system Ω, which may be denoted by ω ν or ων, and in general is to be distinguished from νω. We can also consider this in such a way that to every determinate element ω, there corresponds a determinate transformation of the system Ω in itself (to be denoted by ω), ˙ in so far as every element ν furnishes the determinate transform ω(ν) ˙ = ων. If to this system Ω and its element ω we apply theorem (126), designating by ω˙ the transformation there denoted by θ, then there corresponds to every number n a determinate element ψ(n) contained in Ω, which may now be denoted by the symbol ω n and sometimes called the nth power of ω; this notion is completely defined by the conditions imposed upon it II. ω 1 = ω 0
III. ω n = ω ω n , and its existence is established by the proof of theorem (126). If the foregoing combination of the elements is further so qualified that for arbitrary elements µ, ν, ω, we always have ω(ν µ) = ω ν(µ), then are true also 45
ω n = ω n ω,
ωm ωn = ωn ωm ,
whose proofs can easily be effected by complete induction and may be left to the reader. The foregoing general consideration may be immediately applied to the following example. If S is a system of arbitrary elements, and Ω the associated system whose elements are all the transformations ν of S in itself (36), then by (25) can these elements be continually compounded, since ν(S) 3 S, and the transformation ων compounded out of such transformations ν and ω is itself again an element of Ω. Then are also all elements ω n transformations of S in itself, and we say they arise by repetition of the transformation ω. We will now call attention to a simple connection existing between this notion and the notion of the chain ω0 (A) defined in (44), where A again denotes any part of S. If for brevity we denote by An the transform ω n (A) produced by the transformation ω n , then from III and (25) it follows that ω(An ) = An0 . Hence it is easily shown by complete induction (80) that all these systems An are parts of the chain ω0 (A); for ρ. by (50) this statement is true for n = 1, and σ. if it is true for a number n, then from (55) and from An0 = ω(An ) it follows that it is also true for the following number n0 , which was to be proved. Since further by (45) A 3 ω0 (A), then from (10) it results that the system K compounded out of A and all transforms An is part of ω0 (A). Conversely, since by (23) ω(K) is compounded out of ω(A) = A1 and all systems ω(An ) = An0 , therefore by (78) out of all systems An , which by (9) are parts of K, then by (10) is ω(K) 3 K, i. e., K is a chain (37), and since by (9) A 3 K, then by (47) it follows also that that ω0 (A) 3 K. Therefore ω0 (A) = K, i. e., the following theorem holds: If ω is a transformation of a system S in itself, and A any part of S, then is the chain of A corresponding to the transformation ω compounded out of A and all the transforms ω n (A) resulting from repetitions of ω. We advise the reader with this conception of a chain to return to the earlier theorems (57), (58).
X. THE CLASS OF SIMPLY INFINITE SYSTEMS. 132. Theorem. All simply infinite systems are similar to the number-series N and consequently by (33) also to one another. Proof. Let the simply infinite system Ω be set in order (71) by the transformation θ, and let ω be the base-element of Ω thus resulting; if we again denote by θ0 the chains corresponding to the transformation θ (44), then by (71) is the following true: α. θ(Ω) 3 Ω. β. Ω = θ0 (ω). γ. ω is not contained in θ(Ω). 46
δ. The transformation θ is similar. If then ψ denotes the transformation of the number-series N defined in (126), then from β and (128) we get first ψ(N ) = Ω, and hence we have only yet to show that ψ is a similar transformation, i. e., (26) that to different numbers m, n correspond different transforms ψ(m), ψ(n). On account of the symmetry we may by (90) assume that m > n, hence m 3 n00 , and the theorem to prove comes to this that ψ(n) is not contained in ψ(n00 ), and hence by (127) is not contained in θψ(n0 ). This we establish for every number n by complete induction (80). In fact, ρ. this theorem is true by γ for n = 1, since ψ(1) = ω and ψ(10 ) = ψ(N ) = Ω. σ. If the theorem is true for a number n, then is it also true for the following number n0 ; for if ψ(n0 ), i. e., θψ(n), were contained in θψ(n00 ), then by δ and (27), ψ(n) would also be contained in ψ(n00 ) while our hypothesis states just the opposite; which was to be proved. 133. Theorem. Every system which is similar to a simply infinite system and therefore by (132), (33) to the number-series N is simply infinite. Proof. If Ω is a system similar to the number-series N , then by (32) there exists a similar transformation ψ of N such that I. ψ(N ) = Ω; then we put II. ψ(1) = ω. If we denote, as in (26), by ψ the inverse, likewise similar transformation of Ω, then to every element ν of Ω there corresponds a determinate number ψ(ν) = n, viz., that number whose transform ψ(n) = ν. Since to this number n there corresponds a determinate following number φ(n) = n0 , and to this again a determinate element ψ(n0 ) in Ω there belongs to every element ν of the system Ω a determinate element ψ(n0 ) of that system which as transform of ν we shall designate by θ(ν). Thus a transformation θ of Ω in itself is completely determined,23 and in order to prove our theorem we will show that by θΩ is set in order (71) as a simply infinite system, i. e., that the conditions α, β, γ, δ stated in the proof of (132) are all fulfilled. First α is immediately obvious from the definition of θ. Since further to every number n corresponds an element ν = φ(n), for which θ(ν) = ψ(n0 ), we have generally, III. ψ(n0 ) = θψ(n), and thence in connection with I, II, α it results that the transformations θ, ψ fulfill all the conditions of theorem (126); therefore β follows from (128) and I. Further by (127) and I ψ(N 0 ) = θψ(N ) = θ(Ω), 23 Evidently
θ is the transformation ψ φ ψ compounded by (25) out of ψ, φ, ψ.
and thence in combination with II and the similarity of the transformation ψ follows γ, because otherwise ψ(1) must be contained in ψ(N 0 ), hence by (27) the number 1 in N 0 , which by (71, γ) is not the case. If finally µ, ν denote elements of Ω and m, n the corresponding numbers whose transforms are ψ(m) = µ, ψ(n) = ν, then from the hypothesis θ(µ) = θ(ν) it follows by the foregoing that ψ(m0 ) = ψ(n0 ), thence on account of the similarity of ψ, φ that m0 = n0 , m = n, therefore also µ = ν; hence also δ is true, which was to be proved. 134. Remark. By the two preceding theorems (132), (133) all simply infinite systems form a class in the sense of (34). At the same time, with reference to (71), (73) it is clear that every theorem regarding numbers, i. e., regarding the elements n of the simply infinite system N set in order by the transformation φ, and indeed every theorem in which we leave entirely out of consideration the special character of the elements n and discuss only such notions as arise from the arrangement φ, possesses perfectly general validity for every other simply infinite system Ω set in order by a transformation θ and its elements ν, and that the passage from N to Ω (e. g., also the translation of an arithmetic theorem from one language into another) is effected by the transformation ψ considered in (132), (133), which changes every element n of N into an element ν of Ω, i. e., into ψ(n). This element ν can be called the nth element of Ω and accordingly the number n is itself the nth number of the number-series N . The same significance which the transformation φ possesses for the laws in the domain N , in so far as every element n is followed by a determinate element φ(n) = n0 , is found, after the change effected by ψ, to belong to the transformation θ for the same laws in the domain Ω, in so far as the element ν = ψ(n) arising from the change of n is followed by the element θ(ν) = ψ(n0 ) arising from the change of n0 ; we are therefore justified in saying that by ψφ is changed into θ, which is symbolically expressed by θ = ψφψ, φ = ψθψ. By these remarks, as I believe, the definition of the notion of numbers given in (73) is fully justified. We now proceed to further applications of theorem (126).
XI. ADDITION OF NUMBERS. 135. Definition. It is natural to apply the definition set forth in theorem (126) of a transformation ψ of the number-series N , or of the function ψ(n) determined by it to the case, where the system there denoted by Ω in which the transform ψ(N ) is to be contained, is the number-series N itself, because for this system Ω a transformation θ of Ω in itself already exists, viz., that transformation φ by which N is set in order as a simply infinite system (71), (73). Then is also Ω = N , θ(n) = φ(n) = n0 , hence I. ψ(N ) 3 N, and it remains in order to determine ψ completely only to select the element ω from Ω, i. e., from N , at pleasure. If we take ω = 1, then evidently ψ becomes 48
the identical transformation (21) of N , because the conditions ψ(1) = 1,
ψ(n0 ) = (ψ(n))0
are generally satisfied by ψ(n) = n. If then we are to produce another transformation ψ of N , then for ω we must select a number m0 different from 1, by (78) contained in N , where m itself denotes any number; since the transformation ψ is obviously dependent upon the choice of this number m, we denote the corresponding transform ψ(n) of an arbitrary number n by the symbol m + n, and call this number the sum which arises from the number m by the addition of the number n, or in short the sum of the numbers m, n. Therefore by (126) this sum is completely determined by the conditions24 II. m + 1 = m0 , III. m + n0 = (m + n)0 . 136. Theorem. m0 + n = m + n0 . Proof by complete induction (80). For ρ. the theorem is true for n = 1, since by (135, II) m0 + 1 = (m0 )0 = (m + 1)0 , and by (135, III) (m + 1)0 = m + 10 . σ. If the theorem is true for a number n, and we put the following number n0 = p then is m0 + n = m + p, hence also (m0 + n)0 = (m + p)0 , whence by (135, III) m0 + p = m + p0 ; therefore the theorem is true also for the following number p, which was to be proved. 137. Theorem. m0 + n = (m + n)0 . The proof follows from (136) and (135, III). 138. Theorem. 1 + n = n0 . Proof by complete induction (80). For ρ. by (135, II) the theorem is true for n = 1. σ. If the theorem is true for a number n and we put n0 = p, then 1 + n = p, therefore also (1 + n)0 = p0 , whence by (135, III) 1 + p = p0 , i. e., the theorem is true also for the following number p, which was to be proved. 139. Theorem. 1 + n = n + 1. The proof follows from (138) and (135, II). 140. Theorem. m + n = n + m. 24 The
above definition of addition based immediately upon theorem (126) seems to me to be the simplest. By the aid of the notion developed in (131) we can, however, define the sum m + n by φn (m) or also by φm (n), where φ has again the foregoing meaning. In order to show the complete agreement of these definitions with the foregoing, we need by (126) only to show that if φn (m) or φm (n) is denoted by ψ(n), the conditions ψ(1) = m0 , ψ(n0 ) = φψ(n) are fulfilled which is easily done with the aid of complete induction (80) by the help of (131).
Proof by complete induction (80). For ρ. by (139) the theorem is true for n = 1. σ. If the theorem is true for a number n, then there follows also (m + n)0 = (n + m)0 , i. e., by (135, III) m + n0 = n + m0 , hence by (136) m + n0 = n0 + m; therefore the theorem is also true for the following number n0 , which was to be proved. 141. Theorem. (l + m) + n = l + (m + n). Proof by complete induction (80). For ρ. the theorem is true for n = 1, because by (135, II, III, II) (l + m) + 1 = (l + m)0 = l + m0 = l + (m + 1). σ. If the theorem is true for a number n, then there follows also (l + m) + 0 0 n = l + (m + n) , i. e., by (135, III) (l + m) + n0 = l + (m + n)0 = l + (m + n0 ), therefore the theorem is also true for the following number n0 , which was to be proved. 142. Theorem. m + n > m. Proof by complete induction (80). For ρ. by (135, II) and (91) the theorem is true for n = 1. σ. If the theorem is true for a number n, then by (95) it is also true for the following number n0 , because by (135, III) and (91) m + n0 = (m + n)0 > m + n, which was to be proved. 143. Theorem. The conditions m > a and m + n > a + n are equivalent. Proof by complete induction (80). For ρ. by (135, II) and (94) the theorem is true for n = 1. σ. If the theorem is true for a number n, then is it also true for the following number n0 , since by (94) the condition m + n > a + n is equivalent to (m + n)0 > (a + n)0 , hence by (135, III) also equivalent to m + n0 > a + n0 , which was to be proved. 144. Theorem. If m > a and n > b, then is also m + n > a + b. Proof. For from our hypotheses we have by (143) m + n > a + n and n + a > b + a or, what by (140) is the same, a + n > a + b, whence the theorem follows by (95). 145. Theorem. If m + n = a + n then m = a. 50
Proof. For if m does not = a, hence by (90) either m > a or m < a, then by (143) respectively m + n > a + n or m + n < a + n, therefore by (90) we surely cannot have m + n = a + n which was to be proved. 146. Theorem. If l > n, then there exists one and by (157) only one number m which satisfies the condition m + n = l. Proof by complete induction (80). For ρ. the theorem is true for n = 1. In fact, if l > 1, i. e., (89) if l is contained in N 0 , and hence is the transform m0 of a number m, then by (135, II) it follows that l = m + 1, which was to be proved. σ. If the theorem is true for a number n, then we show that it is also true for the following number n0 . In fact, if l > n0 , then by (91), (95) also l > n, and hence there exists a number k which satisfies the condition l = k + n; since by (138) this is different from 1 (otherwise l would be = n0 ) then by (78) is it the transform m0 of a number m, consequently l = m0 + n, therefore also by (136) l = m + n0 , which was to be proved.
XII. MULTIPLICATION OF NUMBERS. 147. Definition. After having found in XI an infinite system of new transformations of the number-series N in itself, we can by (126) use each of these in order to produce new transformations ψ of N . When we take Ω = N , and θ(n) = m + n = n + m, where m is a determinate number, we certainly again have I. ψ(N ) 3 N, and it remains, to determine ψ completely only to select the element ω from N at pleasure. The simplest case occurs when we bring this choice into a certain agreement with the choice of θ, by putting ω = m. Since the thus perfectly determinate ψ depends upon this number m, we designate the corresponding transform ψ(n) of any number n by the symbol m × n or m n or mn, and call this number the product arising from the number m by multiplication by the number n, or in short the product of the numbers m, n. This therefore by (126) is completely determined by the conditions II. m 1 = m III. mn0 = mn + m 148. Theorem. m0 n = mn + n. Proof by complete induction (80). For ρ. by (147, II) and (135, II) the theorem is true for n = 1. σ. If the theorem is true for a number n, we have m0 n + m0 = (mn + n) + m0 51
and consequently by (147, III), (141), (140), (136), (141), (147, III) m0 n0 = mn + (n + m0 ) = mn + (m0 + n) = mn + (m + n0 ) = (mn + m) + n0 = mn0 + n0 ; therefore the theorem is true for the following number n0 , which was to be proved. 149. Theorem. 1 n = n. Proof by complete induction (80). For ρ. by (147, II) the theorem is true for n = 1. σ. If the theorem is true for a number n, then we have 1 n + 1 = n + 1, i. e., by (147, III), (135, II) 1 n0 = n0 , therefore the theorem also holds for the following number n0 , which was to be proved. 150. Theorem. mn = nm. Proof by complete induction (80). For ρ. by (147, II), (149) the theorem is true for n = 1. σ. If the theorem is true for a number n, then we have mn + m = nm + m, i. e., by (147, III), (148) mn0 = n0 m, therefore the theorem is also true for the following number n0 , which was to be proved. 151. Theorem. l(m + n) = lm + ln. Proof by complete induction (80). For ρ. by (135, II), (147, III), (147, II) the theorem is true for n = 1. σ. If the theorem is true for a number n, we have l(m + n) + l = (lm + ln) + l; but by (147, III), (135, III) we have l(m + n) + l = l(m + n)0 = l(m + n0 ), and by (141), (147, III) (lm + ln) + l = lm + (ln + l) = lm + ln0 , consequently l(m+n0 ) = lm+ln0 , i. e., the theorem is true also for the following number n0 , which was to be proved. 152. Theorem. (m + n)l = ml + nl. The proof follows from (151), (150). 153. Theorem. (lm)n = l(mn). Proof by complete induction (80). For ρ. by (147, II) the theorem is true for n = 1. 52
σ. If the theorem is true for a number n, then we have (lm)n + lm = l(mn) + lm, i. e., by (147, III), (151), (147, III) (lm)n0 = l(mn + m) = l(mn0 ), hence the theorem is also true for the following number n0 , which was to be proved. 154. Remark. If in (147) we had assumed no relation between ω and θ, but had put ω = k, θ(n) = m + n, then by (126) we should have had a less simple transformation ψ of the number-series N ; for the number 1 would ψ(1) = k and for every other number (therefore contained in the form n0 ) would ψ(n0 ) = mn + k; since thus would be fulfilled, as one could easily convince himself by the aid of the foregoing theorems, the condition ψ(n0 ) = θψ(n), i. e., ψ(n0 ) = m + ψ(n) for all numbers n.
XIII. INVOLUTION OF NUMBERS. 155. Definition. If in theorem (126) we again put Ω = N , and further ω = a, θ(n) = an = na, we get a transformation ψ of N which still satisfies the condition I. ψ(N ) 3 N ; the corresponding transform ψ(n) of any number n we denote by the symbol an , and call this number a power of the base a, while n is called the exponent of this power of a. Hence this notion is completely determined by the conditions II. a1 = a 0
III. an = a an = a .na 156. Theorem. am+n = am an . Proof by complete induction (80). For ρ. by (135, II), (155, III), (155, II) the theorem is true for n = 1. σ. If the theorem is true for a number n, we have am+n a = (am an )a; 0
but by (155, III), (135, III) am+n a = a(m+n) = am+n , and by (153), (155, 0 0 0 III) (am an )a = am (an a) = am an ; hence am+n = am an , i. e., the theorem is also true for the following number n0 , which was to be proved. 157. Theorem. (am )n = amn . Proof by complete induction (80). For 53
ρ. by (155, II), (147, II) the theorem is true for n = 1. σ. If the theorem is true for a number n, we have (am )n am = amn am 0
but by (155, III) (am )n am = (am )n , and by (156), (147, III) amn am = 0 0 0 amn+m = amn ; hence (am )n = amn , i. e., the theorem is also true for the following number n0 , which was to be proved. 158. Theorem. (ab)n = an bn Proof by complete induction (80). For ρ. by (155, II) the theorem is true for n = 1. σ. If the theorem is true for a number n, then by (150), (153), (155, III) we 0 have also (ab)n a = a(an bn ) = (a an )bn = an bn , and thus (ab)n a b = 0 0 (an bn )b; but by (153), (155, III) (ab)n a b = (ab)n (ab) = (ab)n , and likewise 0 0 0 0 (an bn )b = an (bn b) = an bn ; 0
therefore (ab)n = an bn i. e., the theorem is also true for the following number n0 , which was to be proved.
XIV. NUMBER OF THE ELEMENTS OF A FINITE SYSTEM. 159. Theorem. If Σ is an infinite system, then is every one of the numbersystems Zn defined in (98) similarly transformable in Σ (i. e., similar to a part of Σ), and conversely. Proof. If Σ is infinite, then by (72) there certainly exists a part T of Σ, which is simply infinite, therefore by (132) similar to the number-series N , and consequently by (35) every system Zn as part of N is similar to a part of T , therefore also to a part of Σ, which was to be proved. The proof of the converse—however obvious it may appear—is more complicated. If every system Zn is similarly transformable in Σ, then to every number n corresponds such a similar transformation αn of Zn that αn (Zn ) 3 Σ. From the existence of such a series of transformations αn , regarded as given, but respecting which nothing further is assumed, we derive first by the aid of theorem (126) the existence of a new series of such transformations ψn possessing the special property that whenever m 5 n, hence by (100) Zm 3 Zn , the transformation ψm of the part Zm is contained in the transformation ψn of Zn (21), i. e., the transformations ψm and ψn completely coincide with each other for all numbers contained in Zm , hence always ψm (m) = ψn (m). In order to apply the theorem stated to gain this end we understand by Ω that system whose elements are all possible similar transformations of all systems Zn 54
in Σ, and by aid of the given elements αn , likewise contained in Ω, we define in the following manner a transformation θ of Ω in itself. If β is any element of Ω, thus, e. g., a similar transformation of the determinate system Zn in Σ, then the system αn0 (Zn0 ) cannot be part of β(Zn ), for otherwise Zn0 would be similar by (35) to a part of Zn , hence by (107) to a proper part of itself, and consequently infinite, which would contradict theorem (119); therefore there certainly exists in Zn0 one number or several numbers p such that αn0 (p) is not contained in β(Zn ); from these numbers p we select—simply to lay down something determinate— always the least k (96) and, since Zn0 by (108) is compounded out of Zn and n0 , define a transformation γ of Zn0 such that for all numbers m contained in Zn the transform γ(m) = β(m) and besides γ(n0 ) = αn0 (k); this obviously similar transformation γ of Zn0 in Σ we consider then as a transform θ(β) of the transformation β, and thus a transformation θ of the system Ω in itself is completely defined. After the things named Ω and θ in (126) are determined we select finally for the element of Ω, denoted by ω the given transformation α1 ; thus by (126) there is determined a transformation ψ of the number-series N in Ω, which, if we denote the transform belonging to an arbitrary number n, not by ψ(n) but by ψn , satisfies the conditions II. ψ1 = α1 III. ψn0 = θ(ψn ) By complete induction (80) it results first that ψn is a similar transformation of Zn in Σ; for ρ. by II this is true for n = 1. σ. if this statement is true for a number n, it follows from III and from the character of the above described transition θ from β to γ, that the statement is also true for the following number n0 , which was to be proved. Afterward we show likewise by complete induction (80) that if m is any number the above stated property ψn (m) = ψm (m) actually belongs to all numbers n, which are = m, and therefore by (93), (74) belong to the chain m0 ; in fact, ρ. this is immediately evident for n = m, and σ. if this property belongs to a number n it follows again from III and the nature of θ, that it also belongs to the number n0 , which was to be proved. After this special property of our new series of transformations ψn has been established, we can easily prove our theorem. We define a transformation χ of the number-series N , in which to every number n we let the transform χ(n) = ψn (n) correspond; obviously by (21) all transformations ψn are contained in this one transformation χ. Since ψn was a transformation of Zn in Σ, it follows first that the number-series N is likewise transformed by χ in Σ, hence χ(N ) 3 Σ. If further m, n are different numbers we may by reason of symmetry according to (90) suppose m < n; then by the foregoing χ(m) = ψm (m) = ψn (m), and χ(n) = ψn (n); but since ψn was a similar transformation of Zn in Σ, and m, n are different elements of Zn , then is ψn (m) different from ψn (n), hence also 55
χ(m) different from χ(n), i. e., χ is a similar transformation of N . Since further N is an infinite system (71), the same thing is true by (67) of the system χ(N ) similar to it and by (68), because χ(N ) is part of Σ, also of Σ, which was to be proved. 160. Theorem. A system Σ is finite or infinite, according as there does or does not exist a system Zn similar to it. Proof. If Σ is finite, then by (159) there exist systems Zn which are not similarly transformable in Σ; since by (102) the system Z1 consists of the single number 1, and hence is similarly transformable in every system, then must the least number k (96) to which a system Zk not similarly transformable in Σ corresponds be different from 1 and hence by (78) = n0 , and since n < n0 (91) there exists a similar transformation ψ of Zn in Σ; if then ψ(zn ) were only a proper part of Σ, i. e., if there existed an element α in Σ not contained in ψ(Zn ), then since Zn0 = M(Zn , n0 ) (108) we could extend this transformation ψ to a similar transformation ψ of Zn0 in Σ by putting ψ(n0 ) = α while by our hypothesis Zn0 is not similarly transformable in Σ. Hence ψ(Zn ) = Σ, i. e., Zn and Σ are similar systems. Conversely, if a system Σ is similar to a system Zn , then by (119), (67) Σ is finite, which was to be proved. 161. Definition. If Σ is a finite system, then by (160) there exists one and by (120), (33) only one single number n to which a system Zn similar to the system Σ corresponds; this number n is called the number [Anzahl ] of the elements contained in Σ (or also the degree of the system Σ) and we say Σ consists of or is a system of n elements, or the number n shows how many elements are contained in Σ.25 If numbers are used to express accurately this determinate property of finite systems they are called cardinal numbers. As soon as a determinate similar transformation ψ of the system Zn is chosen by reason of which ψ(Zn ) = Z, then to every number m contained in Zn (i. e., every number m which is 5 n) there corresponds a determinate element ψ(m) of the system Σ, and conversely by (26) to every element of Σ by the inverse transformation ψ there corresponds a determinate number m in Zn . Very often we denote all elements of Σ by a single letter, e. g., α, to which we append the distinguishing numbers m as indices so that ψ(m) is denoted by αm . We say also that these elements are counted and set in order by ψ in determinate manner, and call αm the mth element of Σ; if m < n then αm0 is called the element following αm , and αn is called the last element. In this counting of the elements therefore the numbers m appear again as ordinal numbers (73). 162. Theorem. All systems similar to a finite system possess the same number of elements. The proof follows immediately from (33), (161). 163. Theorem. The number of numbers contained in Zn , i. e., of those numbers which are 5 n, is n. 25 For clearness and simplicity in what follows we restrict the notion of the number throughout to finite systems; if then we speak of a number of certain things, it is always understood that the system whose elements these things are is a finite system.
Proof. For by (32) Zn is similar to itself. 164. Theorem. If a system consists of a single element, then is the number of its elements = 1, and conversely. The proof follows immediately from (2), (26), (32), (102), (161). 165. Theorem. If T is proper part of a finite system Σ, then is the number of the elements of T less than that of the elements of Σ. Proof. By (68) T is a finite system, therefore similar to a system Zm , where m denotes the number of the elements of T ; if further n is the number of elements of Σ, therefore Σ similar to Zn , then by (35) T is similar to a proper part E of Zn and by (33) also Zm and E are similar to each other; if then we were to have n 5 m, hence Zn 3 Zm , by (7) E would also be proper part of Zm , and consequently Zm an infinite system, which contradicts theorem (119); hence by (90), m < n, which was to be proved. 166. Theorem. If Γ = M(B, γ), where B denotes a system of n elements, and γ an element of Γ not contained in B, then Γ consists of n0 elements. Proof. For if B = ψ(Zn ), where ψ denotes a similar transformation of Zn , then by (105), (108) it may be extended to a similar transformation ψ of Zn0 , by putting ψ(n0 ) = γ, and we get ψ(Zn0 ) = Γ, which was to be proved. 167. Theorem. If γ is an element of a system Γ consisting of n0 elements, then is n the number of all other elements of Γ. Proof. For if B denotes the aggregate of all elements in Γ different from γ, then is Γ = M(B, γ); if then b is the number of elements of the finite system B, by the foregoing theorem b0 is the number of elements of Γ, therefore = n0 , whence by (26) we get b = n, which was to be proved. 168. Theorem. If A consists of m elements, and B of n elements, and A and B have no common element, then M(A, B) consists of m + n elements. Proof by complete induction (80). For ρ. by (166), (164), (135, II) the theorem is true for n = 1. σ. If the theorem is true for a number n, then is it also true for the following number n0 . In fact, if Γ is a system of n0 elements, then by (167) we can put Γ = M(B, γ) where γ denotes an element and B the system of the n other elements of Γ. If then A is a system of m elements each of which is not contained in Γ, therefore also not contained in B, and we put M(A, B) = Σ, by our hypothesis m + n the number of elements of Σ, and since γ is not contained in Σ, then by (166) the number of elements contained in M(Σ, γ) = (m+n0 ), therefore by (135, III) = m + n0 ; but since by (15) obviously M(Σ, γ) = M(A, B, γ) = M(A, Γ), then is m + n0 the number of the elements of M(A, Γ), which was to be proved. 169. Theorem. If A, B are finite systems of m, n elements respectively, then is M(A, B) a finite system and the number of its elements is 5 m + n. Proof. If B 3 A, then M(A, B) = A and the number m of the elements of this system is by (142) < m + n, as was stated. But if B is not part of A, and T is the system of all those elements of B that are not contained in A, then by
(165) is their number p 5 n, and since obviously M(A, B) = M(A, T ), then by (143) is the number m + p of the elements of this system 5 m + n, which was to be proved. 170. Theorem. Every system compounded out of a number n of finite systems is finite. Proof by complete induction (80). For ρ. by (8) the theorem is self-evident for n = 1. σ. If the theorem is true for a number n, and if Σ is compounded out of n0 finite systems, then let A be one of these systems and B the system compounded out of all the rest; since their number by (167) = n, then by our hypothesis B is a finite system. Since obviously Σ = M(A, B), it follows from this and from (169) that Σ is also a finite system, which was to be proved. 171. Theorem. If ψ is a dissimilar transformation of a finite system Σ of n elements, then is the number of elements of the transform ψ(Σ) less than n. Proof. If we select from all those elements of Σ that possess one and the same transform, always one and only one at pleasure, then is the system T of all these selected elements obviously a proper part of Σ, because ψ is a dissimilar transformation of Σ (26). At the same time it is clear that the transformation by (21) contained in ψ of this part T is a similar transformation, and that ψ(T ) = ψ(Σ); hence the system ψ(Σ) is similar to the proper part T of Σ, and consequently our theorem follows by (162), (165). 172. Final remark. Although it has just been shown that the number m of the elements of ψ(Σ) is less than the number n of the elements of Σ, yet in many cases we like to say that the number of elements of ψ(Σ) = n. The word number is then, of course, used in a different sense from that used hitherto (161); for if α is an element of Σ and a the number of all those elements of Σ, that possess one and the same transform ψ(α) then is the latter as element of ψ(Σ) frequently regarded still as representative of a elements, which at least from their derivation may be considered as different from one another, and accordingly counted as afold element of ψ(Σ). In this way we reach the notion, very useful in many cases, of systems in which every element is endowed with a certain frequency-number which indicates how often it is to be reckoned as element of the system. In the foregoing case, e. g., we would say that n is the number of the elements of ψ(Σ) counted in this sense, while the number m of the actually different elements of this system coincides with the number of the elements of T . Similar deviations from the original meaning of a technical term which are simply extensions of the original notion, occur very frequently in mathematics; but it does not lie in the line of this memoir to go further into their discussion.
CATALOGUE OF PUBLICATIONS OF THE
OPEN COURT PUBLISHING CO. COPE, E. D. THE PRIMARY FACTORS OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION. 121 cuts. Pp. xvi, 547. Cloth, $2.00 (10s.).
¨ MULLER, F. MAX. THREE INTRODUCTORY LECTURES ON THE SCIENCE OF THOUGHT. 128 pages. Cloth, 75c (3s. 6d.).
THREE LECTURES ON THE SCIENCE OF LANGUAGE. 112 pages, 2nd Edition. Cloth, 75c* (3s. 6d.).
ROMANES, GEORGE JOHN. DARWIN AND AFTER DARWIN. Three Vols., $4.00. Singly, as follows: 1. The Darwinian Theory. 460 pages. 125 illustrations. Cloth, $2.00 2. Post-Darwinian Questions. Heredity and Utility. Pp. 338. $1.50 3. Post-Darwinian Questions. Isolation and Physiological Selection. Pp. 181. $1.00.
AN EXAMINATION OF WEISMANNISM. 236 pages. Cloth, $1.00.
THOUGHTS ON RELIGION. Third Edition, Pages, 184. Cloth, gilt top, $1.25.
SHUTE, DR. D. KERFOOT. FIRST BOOK IN ORGANIC EVOLUTION. 9 colored plates, 39 cuts. Pp. xvi + 285. Price, $2.00 (7s. 6d.).
MACH, ERNST. THE SCIENCE OF MECHANICS. Translated by T. J. McCormack. 250 cuts. 534 pages. $2.50 (12s. 6d.)
POPULAR SCIENTIFIC LECTURES. Third Edition. 415 pages. 59 cuts. Cloth, gilt top. $1.50 (7s 6d.).
THE ANALYSIS OF THE SENSATIONS. Pp. 208. 37 cuts. Cloth, $1.25 (6s. 6d.).
LAGRANGE, JOSEPH LOUIS. LECTURES ON ELEMENTARY MATHEMATICS. With portrait of the author. Pp. 172. Price, $1.00 (5s.).
DE MORGAN, AUGUSTUS. ON THE STUDY AND DIFFICULTIES OF MATHEMATICS. New Reprint edition with notes. Pp. viii + 288. Cloth, $1.25 (5s.).
ELEMENTARY ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE DIFFERENTIAL AND INTEGRAL CALCULUS. New reprint edition. Price, $1.00 (5s.).
FINK, KARL. A BRIEF HISTORY OF MATHEMATICS. Trans. by W. W. Beman and D. E. Smith. Pp., 333. Cloth, $1.50 (5s. 6d.)
SCHUBERT, HERMANN. MATHEMATICAL ESSAYS AND RECREATIONS. Pp. 149. Cuts, 37. Cloth, 75c (3s. 6d.).
HUC AND GABET, MM. TRAVELS IN TARTARY, THIBET AND CHINA. 100 engravings. Pp. 28 + 660. 2 vols. $2.00 (10s.), One vol., $1.25 (5s.)
CARUS, PAUL. THE HISTORY OF THE DEVIL, AND THE IDEA OF EVIL. 311 Illustrations. Pages, 500. Price, $6.00 (30s.).
EROS AND PSYCHE. Retold after Apuleius. With Illustrations by Paul Thumann. Pp. 125. Price, $1.50 (6s.).
WHENCE AND WHITHER? An Inquiry into the Nature of the Soul. 196 pages. Cloth, 75c (3s. 6d.)
THE ETHICAL PROBLEM. Second edition, revised and enlarged. 351 pages. Cloth, $1.25 (6s. 6d.)
FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS. Second edition, revised and enlarged. 372 Pp. Cl., $1.50 (7s. 6d.).
HOMILIES OF SCIENCE. 317 pages. Cloth, Gilt Top, $1.50 (7s. 6d.).
THE IDEA OF GOD. Fourth edition. 32 pages. Paper, 15c (9d.).
THE SOUL OF MAN. 2nd ed. 182 cuts. 482 pages. Cloth, $1.50 (6s.).
TRUTH IN FICTION. Twelve Tales With a Moral. White and gold binding, gilt edges. Pp. 111. $1.00 (5s.).
THE RELIGION OF SCIENCE. Second, extra edition. Pp. 103. Price, 50c (2s. 6d.).
PRIMER OF PHILOSOPHY. 240 pages. Second Edition. Cloth, $1.00 (5s.).
THE GOSPEL OF BUDDHA. According to Old Records. Fifth Edition. Pp. 275. Cloth, $1.00 (5s.). In German, $1.25 (6s. 6d.)
BUDDHISM AND ITS CHRISTIAN CRITICS. Pages, 311. Cloth, $1.25 (6s. 6d.).
KARMA. A Story of Early Buddhism. Illustrated by Japanese artists. Crˆ epe paper, 75c (3s. 6d.).
NIRVANA: A Story of Buddhist Psychology. Japanese edition, like Karma, $1.00 (4s. 6d.).
LAO-TZE’S TAO-TEH-KING. Chinese-English. Pp. 360. Cloth, $3.00 (15s.).
CORNILL, CARL HEINRICH. THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL. Pp., 200. Cloth, $1.00 (5s.).
HISTORY OF THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. Pp. vi + 325. Cloth, $1.50 (7s. 6d.).
POWELL, J. W. TRUTH AND ERROR; or, the Science of Intellection. Pp. 423. Cloth, $1.75 (7s. 6d.).
RIBOT, TH. THE PSYCHOLOGY OF ATTENTION.
THE DISEASES OF PERSONALITY. THE DISEASES OF THE WILL. Cloth, 75 cents each (3s. 6d.). Full set, cloth, $1.75 (9s.).
EVOLUTION OF GENERAL IDEAS. Pp. 231. Cloth, $1.25 (5s.).
WAGNER, RICHARD. A PILGRIMAGE TO BEETHOVEN. A Story. With portrait of Beethoven. Pp. 40. Boards, 50c (2s. 6d.).
HUTCHINSON, WOODS. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO DARWIN. Pp. xii + 241. Price, $1.50 (6s.).
FREYTAG, GUSTAV. THE LOST MANUSCRIPT. A Novel. 2 vols. 953 pages. Extra cloth, $4.00 (21s). One vol., cl., $1.00 (5s.)
MARTIN LUTHER. Illustrated. Pp. 130. Cloth, $1.00 (5s.).
AC ¸ VAGHOSHA. DISCOURSE ON THE AWAKENING OF FAITH in the Mahˆ ayˆ ana. Translated for the first time from the Chinese version by Tietaro Suzuki. Pages, 176. Price, cloth, $1.25 (5s. 6d.).
TRUMBULL, M. M. THE FREE TRADE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND. Second Edition. 296 pages. Cloth, 75c (3s. 6d.).
WHEELBARROW: Articles and Discussions on the Labor Question, With portrait of the author. 303 pages. Cloth, $1.00 (5s.).
GOETHE AND SCHILLER’S XENIONS. Translated by Paul Carus. Album form. Pp. 162. Cl., $1.00 (5s.).
OLDENBERG, H. ANCIENT INDIA: ITS LANGUAGE AND RELIGIONS. Pp. l00. Cloth, 50c (2s. 6d.).
CONWAY, DR. MONCURE DANIEL. SOLOMON, AND SOLOMONIC LITERATURE. Pp. 243. Cloth, $1.50 (6s.).
GARBE, RICHARD. THE REDEMPTION OF THE BRAHMAN. A Tale of Hindu Life. Laid paper. Gilt top. 96 pages. Price, 75c (3s. 6d.).
THE PHILOSOPHY OF ANCIENT INDIA. Pp. 89. Cloth, 50c (2s. 6d.).
HUEPPE, FERDINAND. THE PRINCIPLES OF BACTERIOLOGY. 28 Woodcuts. Pp. x + 467. Price, $1.75 (9s.).
´ LEVY-BRUHL, PROF. L. HISTORY OF MODERN PHILOSOPHY IN FRANCE. 23 Portraits. Handsomely bound. Pp. 500. Price, $3.00 (12s.).
TOPINARD, DR. PAUL. SCIENCE AND FAITH, or Man as an Animal and Man as a Member of Society. Pp. 374. Cloth, $1.50 (6s. 6d.).
BINET, ALFRED. THE PSYCHOLOGY OF REASONING. Pp. 193. Cloth, 75c (3s. 6d.).
THE PSYCHIC LIFE OF MICRO-ORGANISMS. Pp. 135. Cloth, 75 cents.
ON DOUBLE CONSCIOUSNESS. See No. 8, Religion of Science Library.
THE OPEN COURT. A Monthly Magazine Devoted to the Science of Religion, the Religion of Science, and the Extension of the Religious Parliament Idea. Terms: $1.00 a year; 5s. 6d. to foreign countries in the Postal Union. Single Copies, 10 cents (6d.).
THE MONIST. A Quarterly Magazine of Philosophy and Science. Per copy, 50 cents; Yearly, $2.00. In England and all countries in U.P.U. per copy, 2s. 6d.: Yearly, 9s. 6d.
THE OPEN COURT PUBLISHING CO., Monon Building, 324 Dearborn St. LONDON: Kegan Paul, Trench, Tr¨ ubner & Company, Ltd.
The Religion of Science Library. A collection of bi-monthly publications, most of which are reprints of books published by The Open Court Publishing Company. Yearly, $1.50. Separate copies according to prices quoted. The books are printed upon good paper, from large type. The Religion of Science Library, by its extraordinarily reasonable price will place a large number of valuable books within the reach of all readers. The following have already appeared in the series: No. 1. The Religion of Science. By Paul Carus. 25c (1s. 6d.). ¨ller. 25c 2. Three Introductory Lectures on the Science of Thought, By F. Max Mu (1s. 6d.). ¨ller. 25c (1s. 6d.) 3. Three Lectures on the Science of Language. F. Max Mu 4. The Diseases of Personality, By Th. Ribot. 25c (1s. 6d.). 5. The Psychology of Attention. By Th. Ribot. 25c (1s. 6d.). 6. The Psychic Life of Micro-Organisms, By Alfred Binet. 25c (1s. 6d.) 7. The Nature of the State. By Paul Carus. 15c (9d.). 8. On Double Consciousness. By Alfred Binet. 15c (9d.). 9. Fundamental Problems. By Paul Carus. 50c (2s. 6d.). 10. The Diseases of the Will, By Th. Ribot. 25c (1s. 6d.). 11. The Origin of Language, By Ludwig Noire. 15c (9d.). 12. The Free Trade Struggle in England. M. M. Trumbull. 25c (1s. 6d.) 13. Wheelbarrow on the Labor Question, By M. M. Trumbull. 35c (2s.). 14. The Gospel of Buddha. By Paul Carus. 35c (2s.). 15. The Primer of Philosophy. By Paul Carus. 25c (1s. 6d.). 16. On Memory, and The Specific Energies of the Nervous System. By Prof. Ewald Hering. 15c (9d.). 17. The Redemption of the Brahman. Tale of Hindu Life. By Richard Garbe. 25c (1s. 6d.). 18. An Examination of Weismannism. By G. J. Romanes. 35c (2s.). 19. On Germinal Selection. By August Weismann. 25c (1s. 6d.). 20. Lovers Three Thousand Years Ago, By T. A. Goodwin. (Out of print.) 21. Popular Scientific Lectures. By Ernst Mach, 50c (2s. 6d.). 22. Ancient India: Its Language and Religions. By H. Oldenberg. 25c (1s. 6d.). 23. The Prophets of Israel. By Prof. C. H. Cornill. 25c (1s. 6d.). 24. Homilies of Science, By Paul Carus. 35c (2s.). 25. Thoughts on Religion. By G. J. Romanes. 50c (2s. 6d.). 26. The Philosophy of Ancient India. By Prof. Richard Garbe. 25c (1s. 6d.) 27. Martin Luther. By Gustav Freytag. 25c (1s. 6d.). 28. English Secularism. By George Jacob Holyoake. 25c (1s. 6d.).
29. On Orthogenesis. By Th. Eimer. 25c (1s. 6d.). 30. Chinese Philosophy. By Paul Carus. 25c (1s. 6d.). 31. The Lost Manuscript. By Gustav Freytag. 60c (3s.). 32. A Mechanico-Physiological Theory of Organic Evolution. By Carl von Naegeli. 15c (9d.). 33. Chinese Fiction. By Dr. George T. Candlin. 15c (9d.). 34. Mathematical Essays and Recreations. By H. Schubert. 25c (1s. 6d.) 35. The Ethical Problem. By Paul Carus. 50c (2s. 6d.). 36. Buddhism, and Its Christian Critics. By Paul Carus. 50c (2s. 6d.). 37. Psychology for Beginners. By Hiram M. Stanley. 20c (1s.). 38. Discourse on Method. By Descartes. 25c (1s. 6d.). 39. The Dawn of a New Era. By Paul Carus. 15c (9d.). 40. Kant and Spencer. By Paul Carus. 20c (1s.). 41. The Soul of Man. By Paul Carus. 75c (3s. 6d.). 42. World’s Congress Addresses. By C. C. Bonney. 15c (9d.). 43. The Gospel According to Darwin. By Woods Hutchinson. 50c (2s. 6d.) 44. Whence and Whither. By Paul Carus. 25c (1s. 6d.). 45. Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. By David Hume. 25c (1s. 6d.). 46. Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. By David Hume. 25c (1s. 6d.)
THE OPEN COURT PUBLISHING CO., CHICAGO: 324 Dearborn Street. LONDON: Kegan Paul, Trench, Tr¨ ubner & Company, Ltd.
Typographical Errors corrected in Project Gutenberg edition p. 28 “A0 3 B, B 0 3 B, C 0 3 C” in original, amended to “A0 3 A” etc. p. 42 “the transformation ψ, is therefore completely defined” in original, amended to “ψ1 ”.
End of Project Gutenberg’s Essays on the Theory of Numbers, by Richard Dedekind *** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THEORY OF NUMBERS *** *** This file should be named 21016-t.tex or 21016-t.zip *** *** or 21016-pdf.pdf or 21016-pdf.pdf *** This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: http://www.gutenberg.org/2/1/0/1/21016/
Produced by Jonathan Ingram, Keith Edkins and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
*** START: FULL LICENSE *** THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at http://gutenberg.net/license).
no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United States. 1.E.
Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed: This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net 1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. 1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. 1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. 1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg-tm License. 1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide
access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.net), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. 1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. 1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided that - You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." - You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work. - You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. 1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in
writing from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. 1.F. 1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment. 1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. 1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem. 1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ’AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. 1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life. Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
Section 3. Foundation
Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws. The Foundation’s principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email [email protected]
. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s web site and official page at http://pglaf.org For additional contact information: Dr. Gregory B. Newby Chief Executive and Director [email protected]
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS. The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit http://pglaf.org While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate. International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including including checks, online payments and credit card
To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: http://www.gutenberg.net This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. *** END: FULL LICENSE ***